leader member exchange (lmx) and culture: a meta-analysis...

Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Culture:A Meta-Analysis of Correlates of LMX Across 23 Countries

Thomas RockstuhlNanyang Technological University

James H. DulebohnMichigan State University

Soon AngNanyang Technological University

Lynn M. ShoreSan Diego State University

This study extends leader–member exchange (LMX) research by meta-analyzing the role of nationalculture in moderating relationships between LMX and its correlates. Results based on 282 independentsamples (N � 68,587) from 23 countries and controlling for extreme response style differences indicatethat (a) relationships of LMX with organizational citizenship behavior, justice perceptions, job satisfac-tion, turnover intentions, and leader trust are stronger in horizontal-individualistic (e.g., Western)contexts than in vertical-collectivistic (e.g., Asian) contexts; and (b) national culture does not affectrelationships of LMX with task performance, organizational commitment, and transformational leader-ship. These findings highlight that although members are universally sensitive to how their leaders treatthem, members’ responses in Asian contexts may also be influenced by collective interests and role-basedobligations.

Keywords: leadership, meta-analysis, national culture

A central tenet of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory isthat leaders do not treat each subordinate the same and that LMXquality can range from low to high (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). Social exchange theory isgenerally used to explain the positive effects of high LMX. P. M.Blau (1964) defined social exchange as involving unspecifiedobligations created by received favors. As leaders initiate socialexchanges by bestowing favorable treatment upon certain mem-bers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), members in turn feel obliged towork harder to benefit the leader as a means of reciprocation(Liden et al., 1997). Thus, a key tenet of LMX theory is thatmembers’ work-related attitudes and behaviors depend on howtheir leaders treat them. Earlier meta-analyses had focused onoutcomes of LMX and supported a positive relationship betweenLMX and performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997), citizenship be-havior (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), and attitudes such asjob satisfaction, affective and normative commitment, and turn-over intentions (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris,

2011). Dulebohn et al. (2011) also provided support for variousantecedents of LMX including transformational leadership andleader trust.

To date, the majority of these studies have been based onWestern contexts of individualism and low power distance (House,Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Triandis, 2004). How-ever, as Anand, Hu, Liden, and Vidyarthi (2011) have observed,LMX situated in Asia and other parts of the world may operatedifferently in more collectivistic and higher power distance cul-tures. For example, LMX is significantly associated with organi-zational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the United States (r � .32;Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003) but not in China (r � �.06; Loi &Ngo, 2009). Similarly, whereas LMX is strongly associated withjob satisfaction (r � .69; Pillai, Scandura, & Williams, 1999) andreduced turnover intentions (r � �.55; Francis, 2010) in theUnited States, LMX is more weakly related to job satisfaction (r �.21) in China (Yi, 2002) and is unrelated to turnover intentions(r � �.02) in India (Mehta, 2009). Similarly, Dulebohn et al.’s(2011) meta-analysis found that leader trust was more weaklyrelated to LMX in more collectivistic and higher power distancecultures. Findings such as these prompted Anand et al. (2011) andDulebohn et al. to call for further research on how culture affectsantecedents and outcomes of LMX. We respond to their call bysystematically examining the role of national culture in moderatingrelationships between LMX and its correlates.

Below, we develop our research hypotheses and report ourmeta-analysis comprising 282 independent samples (N � 68,587)from 23 countries that examined relationships of LMX with (a) theoutcomes of task performance, OCB, justice perceptions, job sat-isfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions; and (b) the ante-cedents of transformational leadership and leader trust.

This article was published Online First September 17, 2012.Thomas Rockstuhl, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological

University, Singapore; James H. Dulebohn, School of Human Resourcesand Labor Relations, Michigan State University; Soon Ang, NanyangBusiness School, Nanyang Technological University; Lynn M. Shore,Department of Management, College of Business Administration, SanDiego State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to ThomasRockstuhl, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University,Block S3 01C-108, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798. E-mail:[email protected]

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association2012, Vol. 97, No. 6, 1097–1130 0021-9010/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029978

1097

Theory and Hypotheses

Configurational Approach to National Culture

Hofstede (2001, p. 9) defined culture as “the collective program-ming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group orcategory of people from another.” There are two approaches totheorizing about the effects of national culture. The conventionalapproach uses individual cultural value dimensions as predictors. Amore novel approach uses configurations of cultural values (Triandis,1995; Tsui et al., 2007). The configurational approach is especiallyappropriate to studying culture at the national level of analysis be-cause societal cultural values tend to co-occur. For example, Triandisand colleagues (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Trian-dis, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) discovered national cultureconfigurations of horizontal individualism and vertical collectivismbecause societies that are higher in collectivism are also likely to behigher in power distance, whereas those that are lower in collectivismare also likely to be lower in power distance.

The horizontal individualism/vertical collectivism configurationsproposed by Triandis and colleagues thus distinguish national culturesbased on configurations of two cultural values (Singelis et al., 1995;Triandis, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). The first cultural value isindividualism–collectivism (independent vs. interdependent self), andthe second cultural value is power distance (equal status betweenpeople vs. emphasizing respect for authorities). Specifically, people inhorizontal-individualistic cultures are more likely to regard them-selves as independent of and equal in status with others. By contrast,those in vertical-collectivistic cultures are more likely to describethemselves as interdependent with others and hold greater respect forauthority. Societies in the West are likely to fit into the horizontal-individualistic configuration, whereas societies in Asia tend to fit intothe vertical-collectivistic configuration.

Taras, Kirkman, and Steel (2010) found that individualism–collectivism and power distance were the strongest predictors of arange of outcomes at the societal level. These two values are alsodominantly associated with cross-cultural leadership (Dorfman &Howell, 1998; Ng, Koh, Ang, Kennedy, & Chan, 2011), and LMX inparticular (Anand et al., 2011). Yet, because national cultural valuessuch as individualism-collectivism and power distance are stronglycorrelated (r � .67; Hofstede, 2001), they cannot be studied togetherwithout multicollinearity concerns (Fiss, 2007; Meyer, Tsui, & Hin-ings, 1993).

Hence, we focus on societal configurations of individualism–collectivism and power distance when examining the moderating roleof national culture on relationships between LMX and its correlates.Although Triandis and colleagues suggest four cultural configura-tions, out of the 558 LMX studies identified in our literature search,only five studies came from horizontal-collectivistic or vertical-individualistic societies. Therefore, we consider the joint effects ofindividualism–collectivism and power distance by contrasting thestrength of the relationship between LMX and its correlates in onlyhorizontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic cultures.

The Moderating Effect of National Culture onRelationships Between LMX and Outcomes

Individualism-collectivism describes how an individual seesher- or himself in relation to the collective, whereas power distance

describes the extent to which individuals accept social stratifica-tion and unequal distributions of power in society (Hofstede,2001). Because of their individualistic orientations, people inhorizontal-individualistic cultures are more likely to view self asindependent of others, to emphasize personal goals, and to basetheir social behaviors more on personal attitudes and on howothers treat them (Singelis et al., 1995). Furthermore, because oftheir lower power distance orientation, people in horizontal-individualistic cultures are more likely to view themselves as equalwith others (Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, & Torelli, 2006). Thus,personal relationships and liking are more likely to influence howan individual reacts to people in authority (Dickson, Den Hartog,& Mitchelson, 2003).

By contrast, vertical-collectivistic cultures view the self as in-terdependent with others, emphasize aligning goals with collectiveinterests, and stress perceived duties and obligations in socialbehavior (Triandis, 1995). Furthermore, individuals in vertical-collectivistic cultures tend to emphasize greater respect for author-ity due to their higher power distance orientation (Shavitt et al.,2006). Consequently, people in vertical-collectivistic cultures re-spond to authority figures based on not only personal relationshipsor liking but also role-based obligations (Dickson et al., 2003). Insum, there is a stronger deference to and respect for authorityassociated with vertical collectivism that provides a basis forpredicting weaker effects of LMX in these cultures.

The horizontal individualism/vertical collectivism distinctionhas direct implications for how strongly LMX relates to variousoutcomes. A fundamental assumption of LMX theory in explain-ing the positive effects of LMX is that members’ responses dependon how their leaders treat them (Liden et al., 1997). In other words,LMX theory describes members’ attitudes and behavior as a con-tingent response to leader treatment, which may vary amongmembers. Because personal relationships with leaders and howthese benefit members’ personal goals matter to members inhorizontal-individualistic cultures (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998),they are particularly likely to base their attitudes and behaviors onhow their leaders treat them (Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007). Thus,we expect strong relationships between LMX and outcomes innations with horizontal-individualistic cultures.

Of greater interest in our study is how the relationships betweenLMX and outcomes are influenced by vertical-collectivistic orien-tations. We argue that relationships between LMX and outcomesare stronger in horizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collectivistic cultures. We expect this because even though mem-bers in both cultures are sensitive to leader treatment, members’responses in vertical-collectivistic cultures are more likely to beinfluenced by collective interests and role-based loyalty. Invertical-collectivistic cultures, people emphasize pursuing interestsof the collective and respect for authorities (Shavitt et al., 2006).This has two major implications for how strongly LMX relates tomembers’ work behaviors and attitudes.

First, as van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003) noted, “leaders notonly lead groups of people, but are also themselves members ofthese groups” (p. 244; emphasis in original). Because of theirinterdependent view of the self, members in vertical-collectivisticcultures are more likely than members in horizontal-individualisticcultures to see their leaders’ interests as representing the interestsof the collective (M. Chen & Miller, 2011). More importantly,vertical-collectivistic cultures emphasize aligning goals with col-

1098 ROCKSTUHL, DULEBOHN, ANG, AND SHORE

lective interests even when they are in conflict with personal goals(Triandis, 1995). As a consequence, members in vertical-collectivistic cultures are more likely than members in horizontal-individualistic cultures to work hard for their leader even whenthey are not receiving favors from the leader in return (Y. Chen,Friedman, Yu, Fang, & Lu, 2009).

Second, the tendency to give unquestioning respect for authorityin vertical-collectivistic cultures is likely to affect how membersmight respond to their leaders. As Y. Chen et al. (2009) noted,“Subordinates are expected to show unreserved loyalty and obe-dience toward their superiors” (p. 380). Because of their generallystronger respect for authority, members in vertical-collectivisticcultures are less likely to base their attitudes and behaviors solelyon leader treatment. Instead members’ attitudes and behaviors, inresponse to how leaders treat them, are also influenced by role-based loyalty (Jiang & Cheng, 2008) and deference to leaders(Wasti & Can, 2008). Consequently, changes in how well a leadertreats members should have less of an impact on members’ workbehaviors and attitudes in vertical-collectivistic compared withhorizontal-individualistic cultures.

Hypotheses 1: The positive associations between LMX and(a) task performance, (b) OCB, (c) distributive justice, (d)procedural justice, (e) interactional justice, (f) job satisfac-tion, (g) affective commitment, and (h) normative commit-ment and the negative association between LMX and (i)turnover intentions are stronger in samples from horizontal-individualistic countries than they are in samples fromvertical-collectivistic countries.

Moderating Effect of National Culture onRelationships Between Antecedents and LMX

Leaders determine the quality of LMX relationships to a greaterextent than members (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scan-dura, 1987). In higher quality relationships, leaders offer benefitsfor the member, including consideration of members’ needs, as-sistance with problems at work, emotional support, and formal andinformal rewards (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Previous studies haveexamined transformational leadership (e.g., Pillai et al., 1999),leaders’ trust in members (e.g., Gómez & Rosen, 2001), and otherleader, member, or interpersonal relationship characteristics (seeDulebohn et al., 2011) as antecedents of LMX quality. Because ourstudy was limited by the available cross-cultural samples, we couldonly examine transformational leadership and leader trust.

Based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), LMX theorysuggests that positive evaluations of LMX quality engender posi-tive work behaviors and attitudes by members (Liden et al., 1997).Similarly, we expect this norm to affect relationships betweenantecedents and LMX. In this case, we hypothesize that beneficialbehaviors by the leader give rise to positive evaluations of LMXfrom their members. Leaders who use their power to help memberssolve problems at work, support members’ actions, and considermembers’ needs evoke positive evaluations of LMX quality inmembers (Scandura & Graen, 1984). Such leader treatment issimilar to individualized consideration, which is described in stud-ies of transformational leadership. Individualized considerationrefers to the degree to which leaders support members and attendto their needs (Bass, 1985). Leaders who provide higher support

and attention to members’ needs evoke more positive LMX per-ceptions in those members through processes of personal identifi-cation (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). As Deluga(1992) noted, “Transformational leaders may foster the formationof high quality relationships and a sense of a common fate withindividual subordinates” (p. 245).

Trust refers to a person’s willingness to be vulnerable to anotherparty whose behavior is not under his or her control (Zand, 1972).As Liden and Graen (1980) noted, the extent to which leadersprovide preferential treatment to members, depends on the extentto which leaders trust members. That is, leaders treat membersfavorably based on the “extent to which they can be trusted(especially when not being watched by the supervisor)” (Liden &Graen, 1980, p. 451). When leaders display trust in a follower, theyare signaling that a high-quality relationship exists (Brower,Schoorman, & Tan, 2000). Thus, leader trust plays a crucial role inthe development of higher quality LMX relationships because trustengenders expectations about mutual concern—or a sense of com-mon fate—with individual members (Bauer & Green, 1996).

We suggest that, taken together, transformational leadership andleader trust are positively related to LMX because associatedleader behaviors that benefit members evoke positive LMX eval-uations under norms of reciprocity. Although empirical evidencein horizontal-individualistic cultures supports this notion, researchin vertical-collectivistic societies has found weaker associationsbetween transformational leadership and leader trust with LMX.For example, Pillai et al. (1999) found that transformational lead-ership is more strongly related to LMX in Australia (r � .69) thanin Saudi Arabia and Jordan (r � .24). Similarly, leader trust wasmore strongly related to LMX in the United States (r � .69;Hansen, 2010) than in China (r � .32; Wat & Shaffer, 2005).

As with our earlier arguments, we propose that relationships oftransformational leadership and leader trust with LMX are weakerin vertical-collectivistic than in horizontal-individualistic cultures.We expect this attenuation because members’ perceptions of LMXin vertical-collectivistic cultures are not only influenced by howtheir leaders treat them, but also by interdependent self-views androle-based obligations. In vertical-collectivistic nations, membersevaluate exchange relationships with their leaders based on notonly how those exchange relationships meet their personal needs(Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004), but also mutually prescribed rolesand responsibilities (Y. Chen et al., 2009; Vodosek, 2009). Whenrelationships are constrained by role-based obligations for both thesubordinate and supervisor, as is the case in vertical-collectivisticsocieties, then such leader behavior is likely viewed as less im-portant in determining the quality of the relationship between theleader and the follower. By contrast, in horizontal-individualisticcultures where particularistic relationships with the leader areperceived as more influential in the treatment of individual sub-ordinates, displays of transformational leadership and leader trustprovide critical information about the quality of the relationshipand associated treatment. Thus, changes in transformationalleadership or leader trust are more strongly related to changes inmembers’ perceptions of favorable treatment and LMX inhorizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collectivistic cultures.

Hypothesis 2: The positive associations of (a) transforma-tional leadership and (b) leader trust with LMX are stronger in

1099META-ANALYSIS OF LMX ACROSS CULTURES

samples from horizontal-individualistic countries than theyare in samples from vertical-collectivistic countries.

Method

We conducted a systematic search of the LMX literature, usingseveral methods. First, we conducted a keyword search in theABI/Inform, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertation, and GoogleScholar databases using broad keywords such as leader–memberexchange, LMX, and vertical dyad linkage. Second, we comple-mented this search with a backward citation search in which weconducted a manual review of articles identified by Erdogan andLiden (2002); Gerstner and Day (1998); Ilies et al. (2007); Lidenand Maslyn (1998); and Liden et al. (1997). Third, we used aforward citation search of the prominent LMX measures by Scan-dura and Graen (1984) as well as Liden and Maslyn (1998). Wealso searched for LMX articles from the bibliographies of thearticles identified in the first three searches. Finally, we searchedfor in-press articles in leading management journals and contactedauthors who actively conduct research in this area for unpublishedarticles.

This search resulted in an initial pool of 558 LMX studies from1975 to 2011. Next, we excluded studies that did not report samplesizes along with adequate effect size measures or examined effectsof LMX quality only at the group level. Our final database in-cluded a total of 253 studies conducted in 23 countries. Thesestudies reported a total of 282 distinct samples and 602 correla-tions between member-rated LMX and antecedent and outcomecorrelates with a total sample size of 68,587 (see Appendix A).

Three raters independently coded each study in terms of samplesize, effect size, variances, and reliabilities of LMX and its corre-lates, country of study, and type of LMX correlate. The averageintercoder percentage of agreement across the study variables was95%. For any disagreements, the three coders reached consensusthrough discussion following the approach used by Podsakoff,Bommer, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006).

Test of Hypotheses

We classified studies into horizontal-individualistic or vertical-collectivistic cultural configurations based on the country in whichdata were collected. Ideally, we could use cultural values directlyassessed in LMX studies to classify individual studies. Unfortu-nately, studies do not report these data regularly. Thus, we used themedian split of Hofstede’s (2001) country-level scores of collec-tivism and power distance to determine which configuration bestapplied to each society. Taras et al.’s (2010) findings suggest thatcountry-level scores have lower predictive power than culturalvalues assessed in specific study samples. Hence, using country-level scores presents a more conservative test of the potentialeffects of culture.

We then conducted separate meta-analyses for horizontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic configurations. We usedHunter and Schmidt’s (2004) meta-analytic methods to estimatethe population correlations between LMX and its correlates in bothcultural configurations. We corrected each primary correlation forattenuation due to unreliability in both the predictor and thecriterion. When reliabilities for LMX or its correlates were notreported in the original studies, we used the population estimates

of internal consistency based on reliability generalization proce-dures to correct the primary correlations (Rodriguez & Maeda,2006). To test our moderation hypotheses, we followed proceduresadvocated by Aguinis, Sturman, and Pierce (2008) that compareestimated true correlations between studies in horizontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic cultural configurations.

Test of Extreme Response Style Differences

Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) suggested that differences inrelationship strength across cultures could be due to cultural dif-ferences in extreme response style instead of substantive culturaldifferences. Extreme response style refers to the tendency to usethe extreme categories of rating scales (Cheung & Rensvold,2000). Empirical research shows that Western cultures are morelikely to use extreme categories of rating scales, whereas Asiancultures are more likely to use middle categories of rating scales(Harzing, 2006; T. Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, & Shavitt, 2005). Thegreater use of middle categories in Asian cultures lowers constructvariances in Asian compared with Western cultures (Little, 2000).If vertical-collectivistic cultures show lower variances in LMX orits correlates, then range restrictions may attenuate correlations invertical-collectivistic compared with horizontal-individualisticcultures (Hunter, Schmidt, & Le, 2006).

We address this potential confound in two steps. First, Little(2000) suggests that extreme response style differences are presentwhen construct variances vary systematically across cultures.Thus, we tested for differences in all construct variances acrossboth cultural configurations following random-effects regressionprocedures described by Lipsey and Wilson (2000). Second, forconstructs that showed significantly different variances, we cor-rected individual relationships between LMX and these constructsin vertical-collectivistic societies using range restriction correc-tions suggested by Hunter et al. (2006). We estimated the rangerestriction ratio (ux) as the ratio between the study-specific con-struct variance and the average construct variance estimated forhorizontal-individualistic studies. By applying appropriate correc-tion procedures, our study offers a unique opportunity to examinethe degree to which range restrictions account for observed differ-ences in the relationship strengths across cultures. Hence, thisarticle advances a methodological improvement over previousmeta-analyses that have not considered range restriction as analternative explanation when comparing relationships across cul-tures.

Results

Test of Hypotheses

Table 1 shows the results of our test of Hypothesis 1. Wehypothesized in Hypothesis 1 that members in horizontal-individualistic countries would show a stronger association be-tween LMX and a range of outcomes than members in vertical-collectivistic countries. In terms of behavioral outcomes, theresults demonstrate that the relationship between LMX and OCB isstronger in horizontal-individualistic (�HI � .35) than in vertical-collectivistic (�VC � .28) cultures (t � 2.36, p � .01). However,the relationship between LMX and task performance is not differ-ent in horizontal-individualistic (�HI � .30) and vertical-


collectivistic (�VC � .29) cultures (t � .32, ns). Therefore, Hy-pothesis 1(b) is supported, whereas Hypothesis 1(a) is not.

Regarding justice outcomes, results show that relationships be-tween LMX and distributive justice (�HI � .51 vs. �VC � .36; t �2.77, p � .01), procedural justice (�HI � .63 vs. �VC � .50; t �2.58, p � .01), and interactional justice (�HI � .79 vs. �VC � .62;t � 1.72, p � .05) are significantly stronger in horizontal-individualistic compared with vertical-collectivistic countries.Therefore, Hypotheses 1(c), 1(d), and 1(e) are supported.

Finally, for attitudinal outcomes, results show that relationshipsof LMX with job satisfaction (�HI � .55 vs. �VC � .45; t � 3.09,p � .01) and turnover intentions (�HI � �.40 vs. �VC � �.25;t � 3.25, p � .01) are significantly stronger in horizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collectivistic countries. However,results do not support our hypotheses for organizational commit-ment. The relationships between LMX and affective (�HI � .48 vs.�VC � .52; t � 1.44, ns) and normative (�HI � .29 vs. �VC � .47;t � 1.59, ns) organizational commitment1 are not different inhorizontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic cultures.Therefore, Hypotheses 1(f) and 1(i) are supported, whereas Hy-potheses 1(g) and 1(h) are not.

We hypothesized in Hypothesis 2 that members in horizontal-individualistic countries would show a stronger positive associa-tion of transformational leadership and leader trust with LMX thanmembers in vertical-collectivistic countries. Results (in Table 2)indicate that the relationship between leader trust and LMX is

stronger in horizontal-individualistic (�HI � .72) than in vertical-collectivistic (�VC � .52) countries (t � 1.74, p � .05). Yet, thereis no difference in the relationship strength between transforma-tional leadership and LMX in horizontal-individualistic (�HI �.74) and vertical-collectivistic (�VC � .69) countries (t � .74, ns).Therefore, Hypothesis 2(b) is supported, whereas Hypothesis 2(a)is not.

Test for Extreme Response Style Differences AcrossCultural Configurations

Table 3 presents the meta-analytic variances for LMX and itscorrelates for the two cultural configurations. It also reports the QR

statistic (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) that tests for differences invariances across the two cultural configurations. As noted, extremeresponse style differences are present only when variances differsignificantly across the two cultural configurations. Table 3 showsthat four out of 12 constructs (procedural justice: �HI

2 � 1.11 vs.�VC

2 � 0.75; QR � 8.40, p � .01; turnover intentions: �HI2 � 2.01

vs. �VC2 � 1.48, QR � 5.94, p � .05; transformational leadership:

�HI2 � 0.83 vs. �VC

2 � 0.45, QR � 25.36, p � .01; and leader trust:

1 We also explored relationships between LMX and continuance com-mitment. However, results show that LMX is unrelated to continuancecommitment in both horizontal-individualistic (k � 6, �HI � �.02, ns) andvertical-collectivistic (k � 4, �VC � .13, ns) cultural configurations.

Table 1Results of Moderator Analysis of National Culture on Relationships Between Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) andOutcome Correlates

LMX correlate N k kc r � SD� 80% CV 95% CI t

Task performanceHorizontal individualism 23,024 99 3 .29 .30 .11 [0.16, 0.45] [0.27, 0.33]Vertical collectivism 4,541 17 7 .26 .29 .11 [0.16, 0.43] [0.23, 0.36] 0.32

Organizational citizenship behaviorHorizontal individualism 11,950 62 2 .30 .35 .12 [0.20, 0.50] [0.31, 0.38]Vertical collectivism 5,565 22 9 .25 .28 .11 [0.13, 0.42] [0.21, 0.34] 2.36��

Distributive justiceHorizontal individualism 4,885 22 2 .46 .51 .19 [0.27, 0.76] [0.44, 0.59]Vertical collectivism 2,351 12 7 .30 .36 .13 [0.19, 0.53] [0.28, 0.44] 2.77��

Procedural justiceHorizontal individualism 4,651 21 2 .55 .63 .19 [0.39, 0.87] [0.55, 0.71]Vertical collectivism 2,793 12 7 .42 .50 .10 [0.38, 0.63] [0.44, 0.57] 2.58��

Interactional justiceHorizontal individualism 4,264 14 1 .65 .79 .14 [0.61, 0.97] [0.72, 0.86]Vertical collectivism 1,321 6 4 .54 .62 .23 [0.33, 0.91] [0.41, 0.83] 1.72�

Job satisfactionHorizontal individualism 17,473 78 7 .46 .55 .15 [0.35, 0.74] [0.51, 0.58]Vertical collectivism 4,608 19 7 .42 .45 .11 [0.31, 0.59] [0.39, 0.51] 3.09��

Affective commitmentHorizontal individualism 16,675 70 5 .42 .48 .10 [0.35, 0.61] [0.45, 0.51]Vertical collectivism 6,706 22 11 .44 .52 .12 [0.36, 0.68] [0.46, 0.58] 1.44

Normative commitmentHorizontal individualism 1,575 8 1 .27 .29 .10 [0.17, 0.42] [0.19, 0.39]Vertical collectivism 1,075 5 5 .44 .47 .24 [0.16, 0.78] [0.22, 0.72] 1.59

Turnover intentionsHorizontal individualism 13,583 46 3 �.33 �.40 .09 [�0.52, �0.28] [�0.44, �0.36]Vertical collectivism 3,028 12 4 �.20 �.25 .15 [�0.44, �0.06] [�0.35, �0.15] 3.25��

Note. N � combined sample size; k � number of correlations; kc � number of countries; r � mean uncorrected correlation; � � estimated true scorecorrelation corrected for measurement error; CV � credibility interval; CI � confidence interval; t � t-test statistic for differences in true correlationsbetween countries with configurations of horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism.� p � .05. �� p � .01.


�HI2 � 0.77 vs. �VC

2 � 1.50, QR � 8.78, p � .01) have significantlydifferent variances in horizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collectivistic cultures. Thus, extreme responding appears to affectonly procedural justice, turnover intentions, transformational lead-ership, and leader trust. Table 4 compares relationships betweenLMX and these constructs in horizontal-individualistic andvertical-collectivistic cultures after correcting for range restrictionsin studies from vertical-collectivistic cultures.

Overall, we find that correcting for range restrictions does not alterthe pattern of findings regarding the relationship strength betweenLMX and these correlates across the two cultural configurations.Results show that corrected relationships between LMX and proce-dural justice (�HI � .63 vs. �VC � .54; t � 1.73, p � .05), turnoverintentions (�HI � �.40 vs. �VC � �.26; t � 2.97, p � .01), and leadertrust (�HI � .72 vs. �VC � .25; t � 3.89, p � .01) are significantlystronger in horizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collectivistic cul-tures, whereas this is not the case for transformational leadership(�HI � .72 vs. �VC � .84; t � 1.62, ns). This pattern of results isconsistent with our uncorrected findings.

Discussion

Our study examines a long-standing concern that theories de-veloped in one cultural context may not be equally applicable inother cultural contexts (Gelfand et al., 2007). More specifically,we offer timely insights into the boundary conditions of LMXtheory by examining the moderating impact of national culture onrelationships within the nomological network of LMX.

Seven of the 11 LMX correlates show patterns that are consistentwith our arguments. Although members in both cultural configura-tions are sensitive to how leaders treat them, members’ responses invertical-collectivistic cultures may also be influenced by collectiveinterests and role-based loyalty. The attenuated relationships betweenLMX and OCB, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactionaljustice, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and leader trust suggestthat culture matters when considering antecedents and outcomes ofLMX. Hence, our findings support Anand et al.’s (2011) assertion thatindividualism-collectivism and power distance have implications forthe development and outcomes of LMX.

However, we also observed three intriguing and counterintuitivefindings that corroborate with Hui et al.’s (2004) conclusion thatthe way in which cultural values affect the leader–member rela-tionship is very complex. First, we found that the relationship

between LMX and task performance was not different inhorizontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic cultures. Thisfinding suggests that members in both cultural configurationsappear to require the necessary work-related information and re-sources afforded by higher quality LMX to perform well.

Second, the relationships between LMX and affective and nor-mative commitment were not different in horizontal-individualisticand vertical-collectivistic cultures. One explanation for these find-ings is that followers from both horizontal-individualistic andvertical-collectivistic cultures perceive their leaders to be acting asagents of their organizations, and thus the emotional attachmentand sense of obligation to the organization reflected in affectiveand normative commitment respectively appear to be inspired bythe quality of the relationship with the leader in both culturalsettings. A recent study by Eisenberger et al. (2010) supports thisargument. They designed a study that tested relationships betweenLMX and organizational commitment in both horizontal-individualistic (United States) and vertical-collectivistic (Portugal)cultures. Eisenberger et al. observed that in both cultures, “em-ployees generalize their exchange relationship from their supervi-sor to the organization because they view the supervisor as repre-senting the organization” (p. 1086). Hence, regardless of whetherthe members were from a horizontal-individualistic or vertical-collectivistic culture, any assessment made by members of thequality of relationship with the leader would be likely to havesimilar halo or spillover effects on their attitudes toward theorganization (i.e., organizational commitment).

Finally, the relationship between transformational leadershipand LMX was not different in horizontal-individualistic andvertical-collectivistic cultures. We had argued that in general,members in vertical-collectivistic societies evaluate relationshipswith their leaders based on both how the relationship meets theirpersonal needs and formal roles. Yet, this distinction may not beimportant in relation to transformational leadership given that thecultural profiles did not display differential effects linking this typeof leadership with LMX. Perhaps because of their charismaticappeal and ability to inspire and motivate followers (Judge &Piccolo, 2004), transformational leaders are more effective thanpurely transactional leaders across cultures in getting members tovalue them at a personal level as reflected in LMX. That is, ourresults suggest that instead of seeing leaders merely as formalauthorities carrying out their duties, as we predicted for followers

Table 2Results of Moderator Analysis of National Culture on Relationships Between Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) andAntecedent Correlates

LMX correlate N k kc r � SD� 80% CV 95% CI t

Transformational leadershipHorizontal individualism 4,561 18 3 .65 .74 .19 [0.50, 0.98] [0.64, 0.84]Vertical collectivism 2,247 9 7 .55 .69 .18 [0.46, 0.92] [0.50, 0.88] 0.74

Leader trustHorizontal individualism 4,084 15 2 .55 .72 .27 [0.37, 1.07] [0.58, 0.85]Vertical collectivism 551 3 2 .42 .52 .15 [0.34, 0.71] [0.30, 0.75] 1.74�

Note. N � combined sample size; k � number of correlations; kc � number of countries; r � mean uncorrected correlation; � � estimated true scorecorrelation corrected for measurement error; CV � credibility interval; CI � confidence interval; t � t-test statistic for differences in true correlationsbetween countries with configurations of horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism.� p � .05.


in vertical-collectivistic nations, transformational leaders maybring forth an aspiration on the part of followers to exert efforts toform high-quality relationships. Research from the Global Lead-ership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) proj-ect supports this argument by suggesting that members from allcultures value transformational leaders (Javidan, Dorfman, deLuque, & House, 2006). If that is the case, then transformationalleaders in vertical-collectivistic societies may inspire personalliking through emphasizing the common fate of the leader andfollowers so that formal roles and associated obligations becomeless important. Thus, these leaders affect LMX quality as stronglyas leaders in horizontal-individualistic societies.

Taken together, our results provide important empirical evi-dence that sheds some light on the cultural assumptions, and hencecultural boundaries, of LMX. At the same time, the present study

suggests that culture’s impact on LMX is more complex thanpreviously assumed and warrants deeper consideration by organi-zational scholars. In particular, our discussion of unexpected find-ings above highlights the need to better understand how cultureaffects the mediating processes linking LMX to its various ante-cedent and outcome correlates.

Theoretical Implications and Future ResearchDirections

Findings of this study have several implications for futureresearch on LMX in a global work environment. First, our currentfindings demonstrate that cultural configurations of horizontalindividualism and vertical collectivism moderate relationshipswithin the nomological network of LMX. Future research should

Table 3Results of Moderator Analysis of National Culture on Construct Variances

Variable N k

Variance

�2 SE �2 95% CI QR

Leader–member exchangeHorizontal individualism 47,131 193 0.83 0.02 [0.79, 0.87]Vertical collectivism 15,703 58 0.79 0.04 [0.72, 0.86] .88

Outcome correlatesTask performance

Horizontal individualism 19,997 86 0.76 0.03 [0.70, 0.83]Vertical collectivism 2,577 12 0.63 0.08 [0.47, 0.80] 1.98

Organizational citizenship behaviorHorizontal individualism 11,356 58 0.75 0.04 [0.68, 0.82]Vertical collectivism 5,179 21 0.76 0.06 [0.64, 0.87] .00

Distributive justiceHorizontal individualism 4,885 22 1.26 0.09 [1.08, 1.44]Vertical collectivism 2,351 12 1.17 0.12 [0.93, 1.41] .36

Procedural justiceHorizontal individualism 4,651 21 1.11 0.08 [0.96, 1.27]Vertical collectivism 2,793 12 0.75 0.10 [0.56, 0.94] 8.40��

Interactional justiceHorizontal individualism 3,745 14 1.07 0.11 [0.86, 1.29]Vertical collectivism 1,266 5 1.10 0.16 [0.79, 1.42] .02

Job satisfactionHorizontal individualism 15,135 64 0.85 0.04 [0.77, 0.93]Vertical collectivism 4,371 18 0.80 0.08 [0.64, 0.96] .46

Affective commitmentHorizontal individualism 15,392 61 0.90 0.04 [0.81, 0.98]Vertical collectivism 6,522 21 0.82 0.07 [0.69, 0.96] .79

Normative commitmentHorizontal individualism 1,412 7 1.14 0.14 [0.87, 1.42]Vertical collectivism 1,075 5 0.85 0.16 [0.54, 1.16] 1.92

Turnover intentionsHorizontal individualism 12,767 42 2.01 0.10 [1.82, 2.20]Vertical collectivism 2,607 10 1.48 0.19 [1.11, 1.86] 5.94�

Antecedent correlatesTransformational leadership

Horizontal individualism 4,561 18 0.83 0.04 [0.74, 0.92]Vertical collectivism 2,247 9 0.45 0.06 [0.34, 0.57] 25.36��

Leader trustHorizontal individualism 4,084 15 0.77 0.09 [0.58, 0.95]Vertical collectivism 551 3 1.50 0.23 [1.05, 1.95] 8.78��

Note. N � combined sample size; k � number of variances; �2 � estimated true variance; CI � confidence interval; QR � Q statistic (Hedges & Olkin,1985) for quantitative (regression) model with variance as dependent variable and national culture (0 � horizontal individualism; 1 � vertical collectivism)as independent variable.� p � .05. �� p � .01.


therefore include subordinates’ cultural values of horizontal indi-vidualism and vertical collectivism in the design to see whethereffects at the individual level are similar to what we found at thenational level.

Second, our current findings on moderating effects involvingnational culture highlight the possible cultural boundaries of ex-change processes between leaders and subordinates. Echoing re-cent recommendations by Shore, Coyle-Shapiro, Chen, and Tetrick(2009) for research to examine content and processes of socialexchanges across cultures, we urge future studies to compare LMXcross-culturally, in terms of content. For instance, future researchcould examine the degree to which LMX involve primarily workor nonwork exchanges of social and economic benefits. Law et al.(2000) suggested that whereas in the United States LMX areprimarily work related, in China they involve mainly nonworkexchanges of social and economic benefits. Our pattern of resultsalong with suggestions by these researchers suggests a need formore nuanced approaches to understanding the influence of cultureon LMX.

Third, future research could assess the reciprocity process (e.g.,Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003; J. B. Wu et al., 2006) across cultures tobetter understand the underlying mechanisms by which cultureaffects LMX. Drawing on Sahlins’s (1972) reciprocity typology,J. B. Wu et al. (2006) distinguished balanced reciprocity andgeneralized reciprocity. The focus on mutual benefit in balancedreciprocity suggests that this reciprocity process may be moreprevalent in individualistic cultures where people emphasize thepursuit of mutual interest of both parties to the exchange. Thefocus on other-interest in generalized reciprocity, where there isbeneficial treatment provided with no expectation of a return,suggests that this reciprocity process may be more prevalent incollectivistic cultures where people emphasize the pursuit of col-lective interests. Having a more in-depth understanding of theunderlying mechanisms of exchange can in turn offer more preciseinsights on how to assist leaders in developing constructive ex-change relationships with culturally diverse subordinates, thusensuring their effectiveness.

Strengths and Limitations

A methodological strength of our study is our examination ofresponse style differences and associated range restrictions acrosscultures. Range restrictions across cultures can be due to methodolog-ical artifacts such as less extreme responding (Harzing, 2006; T.Johnson et al., 2005) or to substantial cultural differences such astightness–looseness norms that reduce variability in behavior (Gel-fand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006; Gelfand et al., 2011). We suggestedprocedures that allow meta-analysts to detect range restrictions acrosscultures or moderator categories in general. By applying appropriatecorrection procedures, our study offers a unique opportunity to ex-amine the degree to which range restrictions account for observeddifferences in the relationship strengths across cultures. Hence, thisarticle provides a methodological improvement over previous meta-analyses that have not considered range restriction as an alternativeexplanation when comparing relationships across cultures.

One limitation of our study is that we included a smaller set ofLMX correlates than prior meta-analyses. This was due to the rela-tively small number of cross-cultural, non-U.S., studies available.Thus, future research should continue to examine other LMX corre-lates cross-culturally. Another limitation to our meta-analysis is aninability to examine construct equivalence for the variables in ourstudy across the two cultures. According to van de Vijver and Leung(1997), meaningful cross-cultural comparisons require support forconstruct equivalence across cultures. Common empirical approachesto testing construct equivalence (e.g., Vandenberg & Lance, 2000)require estimates of the covariances between items. Unfortunately,this information is usually not available in primary studies. As aconsequence, change in construct meaning across cultures is an alter-native explanation for our findings. Future research should ascertainwhether our findings can be replicated in carefully controlled designsthat ensure construct equivalence.

Practical Implications

For leaders operating in a global context, our findings havevaluable implications for when establishing personal relationships

Table 4Results of Moderator Analysis of National Culture on Relationships Between Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and Correlates WithRange Restriction Correction

LMX correlate N k kc r � SD� t

Procedural justiceHorizontal individualism 4,651 21 2 .55 .63 .19Vertical collectivism 2,793 12 7 .42 .54 .11 1.73*

Turnover intentionsHorizontal individualism 13,583 46 3 �.33 �.40 .09Vertical collectivism 3,028 12 4 �.20 �.26 .15 2.97**

Transformational leadershipHorizontal individualism 4,561 18 3 .65 .72 .17Vertical collectivism 2,247 9 7 .55 .84 .18 1.62

Leader trustHorizontal individualism 4,084 15 2 .55 .72 .27Vertical collectivism 551 3 2 .42 .25 .17 3.89**

Note. N � combined sample size; k � number of correlations; kc � number of countries; r � mean uncorrected correlation; � � estimated true scorecorrelation corrected for measurement error and range restriction; t � t-test statistic for differences in true correlations between countries withconfigurations of horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism.* p � .05. ** p � .01.


with members is particularly important to achieve positive out-comes for their organizations. Consistent with previous LMXresearch, our results suggest that establishing high-quality LMXrelationships leads to many positive outcomes in horizontal-individualistic cultures (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 1997).By contrast, leaders in vertical-collectivistic cultures may be lessable to achieve these outcomes through LMX and may be betterserved by also relying on role-based loyalty (Jiang & Cheng, 2008)and deference (Wasti & Can, 2008) from subordinates.

Our findings therefore underscore the importance for globalleaders to adapt their approaches to building relationships withmulticultural subordinates in order to be effective. Leaders fromhorizontal-individualistic cultures may not always need to put asmuch emphasis on developing personalized exchange relationshipswhen interacting with vertical-collectivistic subordinates. Rather,they can also draw on their role-based authority. Leaders fromvertical-collectivistic cultures on the other hand should be awarethat they may need to make a greater effort to develop personalizedexchange relationships when interacting with horizontal-individualistic subordinates instead of relying primarily on theirrole-based authority.

As a result, careful selection, grooming, and development ofleaders who can operate effectively in our globalized environmentis a pressing need for contemporary organizations (Avolio,Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Notably, the competencies thatmake leaders effective in domestic settings may differ forleaders in cross-border settings (Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, VanDyne, & Annen, 2011). Avolio et al. (2009) suggested thatleaders with high cultural intelligence (CQ)—the capability tofunction and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings(Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003)—are better able tomanage culturally diverse expectations of their followers. Thus,when leaders work extensively in international or cross-bordersettings, organizations should emphasize development of cross-cultural capabilities, such as CQ.

Conclusion

We meta-analyzed relationships between LMX and commonlystudied correlates to examine the role of national culture in LMXresearch. Results based on 282 independent samples (N � 68,587)from 23 countries indicate that national culture moderates relation-ships between LMX and commonly studied correlates. Specifi-cally, relationships of LMX with OCB, justice perceptions, jobsatisfaction, turnover intentions, and leader trust are stronger inhorizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collectivistic cultureseven after controlling for response style differences. These find-ings support our hypothesis that although members in both culturesare sensitive to how leaders treat them, members’ responses invertical-collectivistic cultures are also more likely to be influencedby collective interests and role-based loyalty. Yet, results alsoshow that national culture does not influence relationships of LMXwith task performance, organizational commitment, and transfor-mational leadership. Taken together, our results provide timelyinsights to the cultural assumptions of LMX theory and suggest thecriticality of further research exploring the role of culture onleader–member relations.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in themeta-analysis.

Aguinis, H., Sturman, M. C., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Comparison of threemeta-analytic procedures for estimating moderating effects of categori-cal variables. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 9–34. doi:10.1177/1094428106292896

Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader–memberexchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. In A.Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Sagehandbook of leadership (pp. 311–325). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010).Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as asubstitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53,970–988. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533176

*Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and indi-vidual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81, 282–296. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.282

*Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discrimination among orga-nizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 22, 347–366. doi:10.1002/job.92

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., &Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement andeffects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation,and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335–371. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x

*Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader–member exchange in a Chinesecontext: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowermentand outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59, 793–801. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.003

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership:Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 421– 449. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621

*Ballinger, G. A., Lehman, D. W., & Schoorman, F. D. (2010). Leader–member exchange and turnover before and after succession events.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 25–36.doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.003

*Barbuto, J. E. J., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development andconstruct clarification of servant leadership. Group & OrganizationManagement, 31, 300–326. doi:10.1177/1059601106287091

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.New York, NY: Free Press.

*Basu, R. (1991). An empirical examination of leader–member exchangeand transformational leadership as predictors of innovative behavior(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and The-ses database. (UMI No. 9201299)

*Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1995). Subordinate performance, leader–subordinate compatibility, and exchange quality in leader–member dy-ads: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 77–92.doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01585.x

*Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). Alongitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: LMX, perfor-mance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 91, 298–310. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.298

*Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–memberexchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39,1538–1567. doi:10.2307/257068

*Bernerth, J. B. (2005). Putting exchange back into leader–member ex-change (LMX): An empirical assessment of a social exchange (LMSX)scale and an investigation of personality as an antecedent (Doctoraldissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data-base. (UMI No. 3201432)


*Bettencourt, L. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenshipbehaviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orientation.Journal of Retailing, 80, 165–180. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2003.12.001

*Bhal, K. T. (2006). LMX–citizenship behavior relationship: Justice as amediator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 106–117. doi:10.1108/01437730610646615

*Bhal, K. T., & Ansari, M. A. (2007). Leader–member exchange–subordinate outcomes relationship: Role of voice and justice. Leadership& Organization Development Journal, 28, 20 –35. doi:10.1108/01437730710718227

*Bhal, K. T., Gulati, N., & Ansari, M. A. (2009). Leader–member ex-change and subordinate outcomes: Test of a mediation model. Leader-ship & Organization Development Journal, 30, 106–125. doi:10.1108/01437730910935729

*Blau, G. (1988). An investigation of the apprenticeship organizationalsocialization strategy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 176–195.doi:10.1016/0001-8791(88)90013-9

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY:Wiley.

*Botero, I. C. (2005). Getting one’s way vs. maintaining the relationship:Effects of leader–member exchange (LMX) quality on upward influencemessage production across two cultures (Doctoral dissertation). Avail-able from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3171442)

*Boulanger, D. (2008). Leader–member exchange and trust: How a teambuilding exercise improves leader–member relations (Master’s thesis).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.1455841)

*Bowman, M. D. (2010). A test of direct and partially mediated relation-ships between leader member exchange, job embeddedness, turnoverintentions, and job search behaviors in a southern police department(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and The-ses database. (UMI No. 3371500)

*Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Wheatley, K. (2004). Social exchangeswithin organizations and work outcomes: The importance of local andglobal relationships. Group & Organization Management, 29, 276–301.doi:10.1177/1059601103257405

*Brouer, R. L. (2007). The role of political skill in the leadership process–work outcomes relationships (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3282577)

Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model ofrelational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member ex-change. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227–250. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00040-0

*Brunetto, Y., Farr-Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2010). The impact ofsupervisor–subordinate relationships on morale: Implications for publicand private sector nurses’ commitment. Human Resource ManagementJournal, 20, 206–225. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00117.x

*Butler, A. M. (2010). Why they stay: Factors that influence informationtechnology employees’ retention during mergers, acquisitions, and di-vestitures (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3408904)

*Carter, G. (2010). The relationships among social exchange, organiza-tional citizenship, and employee behavior (Master’s thesis). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1479415)

*Castleberry, S. B., & Tanner, J. F. (1989). Salesperson’s commitment tothe organization: Associations with performance, motivation, conflict,satisfaction, and relationship with the manager. Journal of AppliedBusiness Research, 5, 84–89.

*Chan, L. R. (2004). The effects of ethnic diversity on LMX, job satisfac-tion, and organizational commitment (Master’s thesis). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1423156)

*Chang, C. (2005). Investigating leader–member exchange and team–member exchange as moderators of the relationship between transfor-

mational leadership practices and team effectiveness (Doctoral disser-tation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.(UMI No. 3191366)

Chen, M., & Miller, D. (2011). The relational perspective as a businessmindset: Managerial implications for East and West. Academy of Man-agement Perspectives, 25(3), 6–18. doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.63886526

*Chen, Y., Friedman, R., Yu, E., Fang, W., & Lu, X. (2009). Supervisor–subordinate guanxi: Developing a three-dimensional model and scale.Management and Organization Review, 5, 375–399. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00153.x

*Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader–member exchange andmember performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 92, 202–212. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.202

*Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychologicalcontract breach: A dual perspective. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 29, 527–548. doi:10.1002/job.481

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acqui-escence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equa-tions modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187–212.doi:10.1177/0022022100031002003

*Chi, S., & Lo, H. (2003). Taiwanese employees’ justice perceptions ofco-workers’ punitive events. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 27–42.doi:10.1080/00224540309598429

*Chuang, A., & Shen, C. T. (2008, August). Leader–member relationship:The mediation and moderation effects of person–environment fit in aChinese culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academyof Management, Anaheim, CA.

*Clemens, E. V., Milsom, A., & Cashwell, C. S. (2009). Using leader–member exchange theory to examine principal–school counselor rela-tionships, school counselors’ roles, job satisfaction, and turnover inten-tions. Professional School Counseling, 13, 75–85. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-13.75

*Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L.(2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader–memberexchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. Leader-ship Quarterly, 20, 452–465. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.010

*Collins, M. D., & George, R. T. (2010). Examination of the relationshipsamong leader–member exchange, job satisfaction, and turnover intent ina limited-service restaurant environment. In Proceedings of the annualmeeting of the Southern Management Association (pp. 146–151). Re-trieved from http://southernmanagement.org/meetings/2010/proceedings/PaperID158.pdf

*Connell, P. W. (2005). Transformational leadership, leader–memberexchange (LMX), and OCB: The role of motives (Doctoral dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3197920)

*DeConinck, J. B. (2009). The effect of leader–member exchange onturnover among retail buyers. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1081–1086. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.09.011

*DeConinck, J. B. (2011). The effects of leader–member exchange andorganizational identification on performance and turnover among sales-people. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31, 21–34.doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134310102

*Deluga, R. J. (1992). The relationship of leader–member exchange withlaissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership in naval en-vironments. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.),Impact of leadership (pp. 237–247). Greensboro, NC: Center for Cre-ative Leadership.

*Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader–member exchange quality and effectivenessratings: The role of subordinate–supervisor conscientiousness similarity.Group & Organization Management, 23, 189 –216. doi:10.1177/1059601198232006


*Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performanceand ingratiation in leader–member exchanges. Group & OrganizationManagement, 19, 67–86. doi:10.1177/1059601194191004

*DelVecchio, S. K. (1998). The quality of salesperson–manager relation-ship: The effect of latitude, loyalty, and competence. Journal of Per-sonal Selling & Sales Management, 18, 31–47.

Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Researchon leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raisingnew questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729 –768. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.002

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange modelof leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 11, 618–634.

*Dolden, S. A. (2001). An examination of the moderating role of perceivedsupport for innovation on leader–member exchange, team–member ex-change, and individual-level work outcomes (Master’s thesis). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1406127)

Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national cultureand effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In J. L. C. Cheng,& R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Advances in international comparative man-agement (Vol. 3, pp. 127–150). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

*Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1993). How do I like thee?Let me appraise the ways. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,239–249. doi:10.1002/job.4030140304

*Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadicquality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37, 499–521. doi:10.2307/256698

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris,G. R. (2011). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences ofleader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward thefuture. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280

*Dunegan, K. J. (2003). Leader–image compatibility: An image theoryview of leadership. Journal of Business and Management, 9, 61–78.

*Dunegan, K. J., Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the linkbetween leader member exchange and subordinate performance: Therole of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Man-agement, 18, 59–76. doi:10.1177/014920639201800105

*Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Duchon, D. (2002). LMX and subordi-nate performance: The moderating effects of task characteristics. Jour-nal of Business and Psychology, 17, 275–285. doi:10.1023/A:1019641700724

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interac-tions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

*Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker,T. E., Gonzales-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The con-tribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 95, 1085–1103. doi:10.1037/a0020858

*Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader–member exchange in the performance appraisal process. Journal ofManagement, 32, 531–551. doi:10.1177/0149206306286622

*Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (1999). The impact of relational demographyon the quality of leader–member exchanges and employees’ work atti-tudes and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 72, 237–240. doi:10.1348/096317999166635

*Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinalstudy of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader–memberexchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,659–676. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659

*Erdogan, B. (2002). Leader–member exchange differentiation fairness:Evidence for a new construct (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3058101)

*Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader–member ex-changes: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 95, 1104–1120. doi:10.1037/a0020578

*Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors’perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader–memberexchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 92, 321–330. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.321

*Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value con-gruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader–member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psy-chology, 57, 305–332. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02493.x

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: Areview of recent developments and future research directions in leader–member-exchange theory. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.),Leadership (pp. 65–114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

*Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator ofresponses to organizational justice: Implications for leader–memberexchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,1–17. doi:10.1002/job.365

*Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader–member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 49, 395–406. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786086

*Erwing, J., & Lee, L. (2009, November). Leader–member exchangeand transformational leadership communication behaviors. Paperpresented at annual meeting of the National Communication Asso-ciation, Chicago, IL.

Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level culturalvalues as moderators of perceived organizational support–employeeoutcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distanceand traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715–729. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.25530866

*Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theoryrevisited: A test of an across-jobs perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 8,67–84. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90031-X

Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configura-tions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1180–1198. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586092

*Foosiri, P. (2002). An empirical study of organizational commitment andantecedents of Thai employees within the American Chamber of Com-merce in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuestDissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3069475)

*Francis, M. E. (2010). The ties that bind: Examining the effects of socialexchange variables on turnover intentions among executives (Doctoraldissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data-base. (UMI No. 3442083)

*Gaa, S. M. (2010). An exploratory analysis of the relationships betweenleadership, safety climate, and organizational citizenship behaviorwithin high-containment biosafety laboratories (Doctoral dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3412440)

*Gandolfo, C. J. (2006). The role of leader member exchange theory andmulti-rater feedback on evaluating the performance appraisal process(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and The-ses database. (UMI No. 3215013)

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizationalbehavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature andimportance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 91, 1225–1244. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225

Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C.,. . . Yamaguchi, S. (2011, May 27). Differences between tight and loose


cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104. doi:10.1126/science.1197754

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82, 827–844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

*Ghosh, R. (2009). Predicting intent to turnover: Reciprocal learning inmentoring relationships, organizational citizenship behavior, and medi-ating mechanisms (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3381912)

*Glibkowski, B. C. (2009). Negotiating social exchanges: The mediatingrole of integrative negotiation in social exchanges (Doctoral disserta-tion). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMINo. 3394217)

*Goertzen, B. J. (2003). Role of managers’ and direct reports’ ethic ofvirtue on leader–member exchanges (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3102566)

*Golden, T. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecom-muter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 319–340.doi:10.1002/job.369

*Gómez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader–member exchange as a linkbetween managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group & Orga-nization Management, 26, 53–69. doi:10.1177/1059601101261004

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623

*Graen, G., Dansereau, F., Jr., Minami, T., & Cashman, J. (1973). Lead-ership behaviors as cues to performance evaluation. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 16, 611–623. doi:10.2307/254694

Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadicorganizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.

Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to lead-ership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory ofleadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec-tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

*Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic andorganizational influences on leader–member exchange and related workattitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66,203–214. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0049

*Green, S. G., Blank, W., & Liden, R. C. (1983). Market and organiza-tional influences on bank employees’ work attitudes and behaviors.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 298–306. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.298

*Greenwood, D. M. (2000). Is anybody listening? Individual differences inreactions to performance feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9949092)

*Greguras, G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidi-mensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader–member exchange. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 79, 433–465. doi:10.1348/096317905X53859

*Grosvenor, S. (2005). Developmental antecedents of leader–followerrelationships and trust (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dis-sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. MR10326)

*Gupta, V., & Krishnan, V. R. (2004). Impact of socialization on trans-formational leadership: Role of leader member exchange. South AsianJournal of Management, 11(3), 7–20.

*Gutknecht, S. P. (2004, October). The role of leader–member exchangeduring organizational changes. Paper presented at the annual conferenceof the International Military Testing Association, Brussels, Belgium.

*Hansen, S. D. (2010). When and how does ethical leadership impactimportant organizational outcomes? A multi-foci social exchange model(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and The-ses database. (UMI No. 3444559)

*Harris, K. J. (2004). What you don’t know can’t hurt you: The interactiverelationship between leader–member exchange and perceptions of pol-

itics on job satisfaction. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Manage-ment, 5, 188–203.

*Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., & Eplion, D. M. (2007). Personality, leader–member exchanges, and work outcomes. Journal of Behavioral andApplied Management, 8, 92–107.

*Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2005). Erasing the strain: The buffer roleof supervisors in the perceptions of politics–strain relationship. Journalof Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 337–354. doi:10.1348/096317905X26110

*Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: Thecurvilinear effect of leader–member exchange on stress. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 146, 65–84. doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.1.65-84

*Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Witt, L. A. (2005). An examination of thecurvilinear relationship between leader–member exchange and intent toturnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 363–378. doi:10.1002/job.314

*Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader–memberexchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job sat-isfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Leadership Quarterly,20, 371–382. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.006

Harzing, A.-W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research:A 26-country study. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Manage-ment, 6, 243–266. doi:10.1177/1470595806066332

*Heck, A. K., Bedeian, A. G., & Day, D. V. (2005). Mountains out ofmolehills? Tests of the mediating effects of self-esteem in predictingworkplace complaining. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,2262–2289. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02102.x

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

*Henderson, D. J. (2009). A communication perspective on leader–memberexchange and turnover and promotion (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3364603)

*Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick,L. E. (2008). Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and psycholog-ical contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 93, 1208–1219. doi:10.1037/a0012678

*Hepperlen, T. M. (2002). Leader–member exchange (LMX) or fulfill-ment? The role of basic psychological needs in LMX relationships(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and The-ses database. (UMI No. 3074080)

*Hochwarter, W. A. (2003). The interactive effects of pro-political behav-ior and politics perceptions on job satisfaction and affective commit-ment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1360–1378. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01953.x

*Hofmann, D. A., Gerras, S. J., & Morgeson, F. P. (2003). Climate as amoderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange andcontent specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 170–178. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.170

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behav-iors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London,England: Sage.

*Holcomb, D. D. (2009). An extension of leader–member exchange (LMX)beyond the member to direct manager dyad and their correlations to themember’s organizational commitment (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3368333)

*Hoover, E. R. (2009). How personality and self-identity impact the effectsof leader member exchange on role stressors and organizational out-comes (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3394160)

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V.(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62societies. Palo Alto, CA: Sage.

*Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: Theimpact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional


leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84, 680–694. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.680

*Hrivnak, G. A., Jr. (2009). Extending a model of leader–member ex-change development: Individual and dyadic effects of personality, sim-ilarity and liking (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3349808)

*Hsiung, H., & Tsai, W. (2009). Job definition discrepancy betweensupervisors and subordinates: The antecedent role of LMX and out-comes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82,89–112. doi:10.1348/096317908X292374

*Hu, J., Vidyarthi, P. R., Anand, S., & Liden, R. C. (2010). Examining asocial exchange model of developmental idiosyncratic deals and em-ployee organizational citizenship behavior. In Proceedings of the annualmeeting of the Southern Management Association (pp. 403–408). Re-trieved from http://southernmanagement.org/meetings/2010/proceedings/PaperID223.pdf

*Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation modelof the effects of negative affectivity, leader–member exchange, andperceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinesecase. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77,3–21. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2812

*Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Employment relationships inChina: Do workers relate to the organization or to people? OrganizationScience, 15, 232–240. doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0050

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-recting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct andindirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 594–612. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594

*Hutchison, S., Valentino, K. E., & Kirkner, S. L. (1998). What works forthe gander does not work as well for the goose: The effects of leaderbehavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 171–182. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01699.x

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–memberexchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92, 269–277. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

*Ishak, N. A., & Alam, S. S. (2009). Leader–member exchange andorganizational citizenship behavior: The mediating impact of self-esteem. International Journal of Business and Management, 4, 52–61.

*Iyengar, K. (2007). The effect of leadership style on CIO effectiveness(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and The-ses database. (UMI No. 3288798)

*Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations,the quality of leader–member exchange, and the outcomes of job per-formance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47,368–384. doi:10.2307/20159587

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). Inthe eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from projectGLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 67–90. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.19873410

*Jenkins, E. Y. (2010). The effects of leader task-oriented behavior onemployee performance (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuestDissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3425739)

Jiang, D.-Y., & Cheng, B.-S. (2008). Affect- and role-based loyalty tosupervisors in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 11, 214–221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.00260.x

*Jiao, C. (2007). The effects of leader–member exchange on employeeconceptualizations and displays of organizational citizenship behavior:A mediational mode (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuestDissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. NR28123)

*Johnson, J. O. (2009). The empirical relationship between the level of jobsatisfaction and the quality of leader–member exchange in engineers

and scientists at a government aerospace facility (Doctoral dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3392349)

*Johnson, J., Truxillo, D. M., Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L.(2009). Perceptions of overall fairness: Are effects on job performancemoderated by leader–member exchange? Human Performance, 22, 432–449. doi:10.1080/08959280903248427

Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relationbetween culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Jour-nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264 –277. doi:10.1177/0022022104272905

*Jones, A. P., Glaman, J. M., & Johnson, D. S. (1993). Perceptions of aquality program and relationships with work perceptions and job atti-tudes. Psychological Reports, 72, 619–624. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.72.2.619

*Joo, B.-K. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers:The roles of perceived organizational learning culture, leader–memberexchange quality, and turnover intention. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 21, 69–85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20031

*Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performanceevaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80–105.doi:10.2307/256513

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactionalleadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 89, 755–768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

*Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Brymer, R. A. (1999). Antecedents andconsequences of organizational commitment: A comparison of twoscales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 976–994. doi:10.1177/00131649921970297

*Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). Theinteractive effect of leader–member exchange and communication fre-quency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,764–772. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.764

*Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality andworkplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performanceand citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1286–1298. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286

*Kang, D. (2004). The impact of organizational justice and leader–member exchange quality on motivation to participate in training:Centered on the mediating effect of employees’ perceived benefits oftraining (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3134581).

*Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. (2009). Organizational justice andorganizational citizenship behavior: A mediated multifoci model? Jour-nal of Management, 35, 112–135. doi:10.1177/0149206307309265

*Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: Asocial exchange perspective. Human Relations, 48, 127–146. doi:10.1177/001872679504800202

*Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (2001). The effect of adding items to scales:An illustrative case of LMX. Organizational Research Methods, 4,131–143. doi:10.1177/109442810142003

*Kent, A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership,organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: A case study inintercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 135–159.

*Kim, B., Lee, G., & Carlson, K. D. (2010). An examination of the natureof the relationship between leader–member-exchange (LMX) and turn-over intent at different organizational levels. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 29, 591–597. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.025

*Kim, S. K. (2006). The role of envy in hospitality employees’ organiza-tional citizenship behavior: A leader–member exchange perspective(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and The-ses database. (UMI No. 3229316)

*Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality ofsupervisor–subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organiza-


tional commitment, and locus of control. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 15, 75–82. doi:10.1002/job.4030150108

*Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence ofsituational constraints leader–member exchange, and goal commitmenton performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 88–95. doi:10.2307/256900

*Ko, J. (2005). Impact of leadership and team members’ individualism–collectivism on team processes and outcomes: A leader–member ex-change perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuestDissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3178416)

*Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J.(2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for devel-opment: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 96, 485–500. doi:10.1037/a0021452

*Kraimer, M. L., & Wayne, S. J. (2004). An examination of perceivedorganizational support as a multidimensional construct in the context ofan expatriate assignment. Journal of Management, 30, 209–237. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.001

*Kraus, E. (1999). Leader–member exchange and upward influence: In-terrelationships and successful consequences (Doctoral dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.1395749)

*Kraus, E. (2002). Personality and job performance: The mediating rolesof leader–member exchange quality and action control (Doctoral dis-sertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.(UMI No. 3076648)

*Krishnan, V. R. (2004). Impact of transformational leadership on follow-ers’ influence strategies. Leadership & Organization Development Jour-nal, 25, 58–72. doi:10.1108/01437730410512778

*Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Leader–member exchange, transformational lead-ership, and value system. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics andOrganization Studies, 10(1), 14–21.

*Lam, T. (2003). Leader–member exchange and team–member exchange:The roles of moderators in new employees’ socialization. Journal ofHospitality & Tourism Research, 27, 48 – 68. doi:10.1177/1096348002238880

*Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior andleader–member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motive matter?Academy of Management Journal, 50, 348–363. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634440

*Law, K. S., & Wong, C.-S. (1999). Multidimensional constructs instructural equation analysis: An illustration using the job perception andjob satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25, 143–160. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80007-5

*Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000). Effect ofsupervisor–subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: Anempirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement, 11, 751–765. doi:10.1080/09585190050075105

*Lee, H.-R. (2000). An empirical study of organizational justice as amediator of the relationships among leader–member exchange and jobsatisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions in thelodging industry (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9974193)

*Lee, H.-R., Murrmann, S. K., Murrmann, K. F., & Kim, K. (2010).Organizational justice as a mediator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and employee turnover intentions. Journal of Hospi-tality Marketing & Management, 19, 97–114. doi:10.1080/19368620903455237

*Lee, J. (2001). Leader–member exchange, perceived organizational jus-tice, and cooperative communication. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 14, 574–589. doi:10.1177/0893318901144002

*Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader–member exchange oncommitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26,655–672. doi:10.1108/01437730510633728

*Lee, M., & Son, B. (1999). The agreement between self and supervisorratings: An investigation of leader–member exchange effects. Interna-tional Journal of Management, 16, 77–88.

*Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personalityin job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relationalperspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404. doi:10.1037/a0018079

*Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the socialexchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects ofrelationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 53, 1090–1109. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533207

*Liao, S.-H., Hu, D.-C., & Chung, H.-Y. (2009). The relationship betweenleader–member relations, job satisfaction and organizational commit-ment in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 20, 1810 –1826. doi:10.1080/09585190903087222

*Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006).Leader–member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence:Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 27, 723–746. doi:10.1002/job.409

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyadlinkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23,451–465. doi:10.2307/255511

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–memberexchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journalof Management, 24, 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–memberexchange theory: The past and potential for future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 15, pp.47–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

*Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination ofthe mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relationsbetween the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407

*Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study onthe early development of leader–member exchanges. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78, 662–674. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.662

*Lindsay, D. (2008). Polychronicity and its impact on leader–memberexchange and outcome behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3325941)

*Lippstreu, M. (2010). Revisiting fundamental concepts of transforma-tional leadership theory: A closer look at follower developmental pro-cesses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3414482)

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. (2000). Practical meta-analysis. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Little, T. D. (2000). On the comparability of constructs in cross-culturalresearch: A critique of Cheung and Rensvold. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 31, 213–219. doi:10.1177/0022022100031002004

*Lo, M.-C., Ramayah, T., Min, H. W., & Songan, P. (2010). The relation-ship between leadership styles and organizational commitment in Ma-laysia: Role of leader–member exchange. Asia Pacific Business Review,16, 79–103. doi:10.1080/13602380903355676

*Loi, R., Mao, Y., & Ngo, H. (2009). Linking leader–member exchangeand employee work outcomes: The mediating role of organizationalsocial and economic exchange. Management and Organization Review,5, 401–422. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00149.x

*Loi, R., & Ngo, H. (2009). Work outcomes of relational demography inChinese vertical dyads. International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement, 20, 1704–1719. doi:10.1080/09585190903087057

*Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995).A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socializa-tion outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors.


Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418–431. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.3.418

*Manogran, P., Stauffer, J., & Conlon, E. J. (1994). Leader–memberexchange as a key mediating variable between employee’s perceptionsof fairness and organizational citizenship behavior. In Best paper pro-ceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management(pp. 249–253). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

*Markham, S. E., Yammarino, F. J., Murry, W. D., & Palanski, M. E.(2010). Leader–member exchange, shared values, and performance:Agreement and levels of analysis do matter. Leadership Quarterly, 21,469–480. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.010

*Martin, D. F. (1999). The impact of trust on leader–member exchangerelationships (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Disser-tations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9933461)

*Maslyn, J. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1998). Perceptions of politics: Doesmeasuring different foci matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,645–653. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.645

*Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000).Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fairprocedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 43, 738–748. doi:10.2307/1556364

*Mehta, A. (2009). Examining the role of personal, social exchange, andcontextual fit variables in employee work outcomes under continuouschange: A field investigation (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3386211)

*Mendez, M. I. (1999). Leader–member exchange as moderator of the jobdissatisfaction-communication response relationship (Master’s thesis).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.1397496)

Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurationalapproaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 36, 1175–1195. doi:10.2307/256809

*Morrow, P. C., Suzuki, Y., Crum, M. R., Ruben, R., & Pautsch, G. (2005).The role of leader–member exchange in high turnover work environ-ments. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 681–694. doi:10.1108/02683940510631444

*Murphy, S. M. (1997). Organizational justice: An examination of ante-cedents and consequences (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Pro-Quest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9815176)

*Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003).Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and ex-change relationships. Human Relations, 56, 61– 84. doi:10.1177/0018726703056001450

*Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (1999). The effects of leader andsubordinate characteristics in the development of leader–member ex-change quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1371–1394.doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00144.x

*Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development ofleader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performanceinfluence leader and member relationships over time. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256–266. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.002

*Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., Jr., & Milliman, J. (1991). Interpersonalrelations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on perfor-mance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of ManagementJournal, 34, 352–369. doi:10.2307/256446

Ng, K. Y., Koh, C., Ang, S., Kennedy, J. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2011). Ratingleniency and halo in multisource feedback ratings: Testing culturalassumptions of power distance and individualism–collectivism. Journalof Applied Psychology, 96, 1033–1044. doi:10.1037/a0023368

*Novak, M. A. (1984). A study of leader resources as determinants ofleader–member exchange (power) (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8509493)

*Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commit-ments of American business managers. Group & Organization Manage-ment, 15, 296–312. doi:10.1177/105960119001500305

*O’Donnell, M. E. (2009). The influence of leader behaviors on theleader–member exchange relationship (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3350104)

*O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, rolestressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subor-dinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 141–155. doi:10.1002/job.4030150204

*Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and man-agers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 23, 215–235. doi:10.1002/job.137

*Palacios, J. A., Jr. (2010). Job role ambiguity as a mediator betweenworkplace communication and positive work outcomes (Master’s thesis).Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.1490405)

*Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (2000). Relational demography and relation-ship quality in two cultures. Organization Studies, 21, 1077–1094.doi:10.1177/0170840600216003

*Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader–member exchange(LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: Anempirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37,264–279. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400185

*Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. (2010). Cross-culturalgeneralizability of paternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader–member exchange theory. Group & Organization Management, 35,391–420. doi:10.1177/1059601110378456

*Perizade, B., & Sulaiman, M. (2005). Leader–member exchange andleadership effectiveness of chief executive officers in South Sumatra,Indonesia. Business Review, 4, 331–337.

*Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader–follower exchangequality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 990–1001. doi:10.2307/256608

*Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership andjob behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academyof Management Journal, 49, 327–340. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079

*Pierce, H. R. (2001). Employee development as an exchange process:Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange and per-ception of benefit (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3015679)

*Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership andorganizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Jour-nal of International Business Studies, 30, 763–779. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490838

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B.(2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviorand subordinate attitudes, perceptions and behaviors: A meta-analyticreview of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 99, 113–142. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.002

*Polly, L. M. (2002). Social exchange and customer service: The relation-ship between perceived organizational support, leader–member ex-change, and customer service behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Avail-able from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3057383)

*Rahn, D. L. (2010). The role of follower self-concept and implicit lead-ership theories in transformational leadership and leader–member ex-change (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3396741)

*Ren, R. (2007). Quality of supervisor–subordinate relationship, culturalvalues, and organizational justice (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3296523)


*Richins, S. I. (2003). Quid pro quo or quid pro quid? An empiricalexamination of the currencies of exchange approach to leader–memberexchange (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3089790)

*Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in anexchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions.Journal of Management, 32, 299–322. doi:10.1177/0149206305280115

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011).Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): Therole of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effective-ness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 825–840.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x

Rodriguez, M. C., & Maeda, Y. (2006). Meta-Analysis of coefficient alpha.Psychological Methods, 11, 306–322. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.306

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York, NY: Aldine deGruyter.

*Sanchez, R. J. (2002). The role of trust, leader–member exchange, andorganizational justice in employee attitudes and behaviors: A laboratoryand field investigation (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuestDissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3183765)

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initialleader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership interven-tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428

*Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managersdecide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader–memberexchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,579–584. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.579

*Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. (2008). Trust and leader–memberexchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leader-ship & Organizational Studies, 15, 101–110. doi:10.1177/1548051808320986

*Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader–member exchangeand supervisor career mentoring. Academy of Management Journal, 37,1588–1602. doi:10.2307/256800

*Schaninger, W. S., Jr. (2002). The workplace social exchange network:An empirical examination (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Pro-Quest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3044025)

*Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investi-gating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervi-sion and upward controllingness on leader–member exchange usingtraditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysis. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659–677. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.659

*Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegationand leader–member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measure-ment issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298–318. doi:10.2307/256909

*Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., & Tepper, B. J.(1992). Development and preliminary validation of a new scale(LMX-6) to measure leader–member exchange in organizations. Edu-cational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 135–147. doi:10.1177/001316449205200119

*Schyns, B., Paul, T., Mohr, G., & Blank, H. (2005). Comparing anteced-ents and consequences of leader–member exchange in a German work-ing context to findings in the US. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 14, 1–22. doi:10.1080/13594320444000191

*Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 580–607. doi:10.2307/256701

*Seers, A. (1989). Team–member exchange quality: A new construct forrole-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 43, 118–135. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5

*Seers, A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: Alongitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics andleader–member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 33, 283–306. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90025-4

*Sekiguchi, T., Burton, J., & Sablynski, C. (2008). The role of jobembeddedness on employee performance: The interactive effects withleader–member exchange and organization-based self-esteem. Person-nel Psychology, 61, 761–792. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00130.x

*Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange inorganizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member ex-change, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,219–227. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219

*Shalhoop, J. H. (2004). Social exchange as a mediator of the relationshipbetween organizational justice and workplace outcomes (Doctoral dis-sertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.(UMI No. 3108226)

*Shapiro, D. L., Boss, A. D., Salas, S., Tangirala, S., & Von Glinow, M. A.(2011). When are transgressing leaders punitively judged? An empiricaltest. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 412– 422. doi:10.1037/a0021442

Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A. K., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. J. (2006). Thehorizontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Jour-nal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 325–342. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_3

*Sherony, K. M. (2002). Leader emotional expression and leader–memberexchange (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3099851)

Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., Chen, X.-P., & Tetrick, L. E.(2009). Social exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixedmodels. Management and Organization Review, 5, 289 –302. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00158.x

*Shull, C. K. (1994). The effects of leader–member exchange relations onorganizational citizenship behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9517484)

*Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee infor-mation experiences. Communication Studies, 56, 375–395. doi:10.1080/10510970500319450

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995).Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Atheoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29,240–275. doi:10.1177/106939719502900302

*Smith, M. L., Jr. (2002). Reciprocity and social exchange relationships inorganizations: Examining why and how individuals contribute to orga-nizational social capital (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Pro-Quest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3078881)

*Soldner, J. L., & Crimando, W. (2010). Relationships among leader–member exchange, organizational citizenship, organizational commit-ment, dyadic gender, and dyadic duration in a rehabilitation center.Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 34, 25–34.

*Sparrowe, R. T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospitality industry: Anexploration of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research, 17, 51–73. doi:10.1177/109634809401700306

*Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do leaders’influence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It depends on thequality of the relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1194–1208. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478645

*Stepina, L. P., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). Acomparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, andreward domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal ofSocial Behavior and Personality, 6, 93–104.

*Story, J. S. (2010). Testing the impact of global mindset on positiveoutcomes: A multilevel analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3398225)


*Stringer, L. (2006). The link between the quality of the supervisor–employee relationship and the level of the employee’s job satisfaction.Public Organization Review, 6, 125–142. doi:10.1007/s11115-006-0005-0

*Suazo, M. K. (2002). An examination of antecedents and consequences ofpsychological contract breach (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3083200)

*Tansky, J. W. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior:What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,6, 195–207. doi:10.1007/BF01419444

Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact ofculture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic re-view of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 95, 405–439. doi:10.1037/a0018938

*Tekleab, A. G., Taylor, S. M. (2003). Aren’t there two parties in anemployment relationship? Antecedents and consequences oforganization–employee agreement on contract obligations and viola-tions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 585–608. doi:10.1002/job.204

*Tepper, B. J., Uhl-Bien, M., Kohut, G. F., Rogelberg, S. G., Lockhart,D. E., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Subordinates’ resistance and managers’evaluations of subordinates’ performance. Journal of Management, 32,185–209. doi:10.1177/0149206305277801

*Tierney, P., Bauer, T. N., & Potter, R. E. (2002). Extra-role behavioramong Mexican employees: The impact of LMX, group acceptance, andjob attitudes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10,292–303. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00219

*Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination ofleadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relation-ships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x

*Townsend, J. C., Da Silva, N., Mueller, L., Curtin, P., & Tetrick, L. E.(2002). Attributional complexity: A link between training, job complex-ity, decision latitude, leader–member exchange, and performance. Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01427.x

*Townsend, J., Phillips, J. S., & Elkins, T. J. (2000). Employee retaliation:The neglected consequence of poor leader–member exchange relations.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457–463. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.4.457

*Trepanier, C. (2011). Managerial coaching and seller performance: Arelational approach (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuestDissertations and Theses database. (NR70635)

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy ofManagement Executive, 18, 88–93. doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12689599

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement ofhorizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

*Truckenbrodt, Y. B. (2000). An empirical assessment of the relationshipbetween leader–member exchange and organizational commitment andorganizational citizenship behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9988008)

Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recom-mendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426 – 478. doi:10.1177/0149206307300818

*Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2003). Reciprocity in manager–subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes.Journal of Management, 29, 511–532.

*van Breukelen, W., Konst, D., & Van Der Vlist, R. (2002). Effects ofLMX and differential treatment on work unit commitment. Psycholog-ical Reports, 91, 220–230. doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.220

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of themeasurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recom-mendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Meth-ods, 3, 4–69. doi:10.1177/109442810031002

van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis forcross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

*Van Dyne, L., Jehn, K. A., & Cummings, A. (2002). Differential effects of strainon two forms of work performance: Individual employee sales and creativity.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 57–74. doi:10.1002/job.127

*Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptionsbuffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance thepositive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology,93, 1195–1207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.6.1195

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model ofleadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 25, 243–295. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25006-1

*Vecchio, R. P. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader–member exchange: A failure to replicate. Academy of ManagementJournal, 28, 478–485. doi:10.2307/256213

*Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of aprescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 444–451. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.444

*Vecchio, R. P., & Brazil, D. M. (2007). Leadership and sex-similarity: Acomparison in a military setting. Personnel Psychology, 60, 303–335.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00075.x

*Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situa-tional leadership theory: A replication in a military setting. Small GroupResearch, 37, 407–424. doi:10.1177/1046496406291560

*Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage modelof leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 34, 5–20. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90035-7

*Vecchio, R. P., Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (1986). The predictiveutility of the vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 126, 617–625. doi:10.1080/00224545.1986.9713634

*Vecchio, R. P., & Norris, W. R. (1996). Predicting employee turnoverfrom performance, satisfaction, and leader–member exchange. Journalof Business and Psychology, 11, 113–125. doi:10.1007/BF02278260

*Venkataramani, V., Green, S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The impact of leaders’ social network ties on LMXand members’ work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1071–1084. doi:10.1037/a0020214

*Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S.(2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader–memberexchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95, 849–861. doi:10.1037/a0020033

Vodosek, M. (2009). The relationship between relational models andindividualism and collectivism: Evidence from culturally diverse workgroups. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 120–128. doi:10.1080/00207590701545684

*Volmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011).Reciprocal relationships between leader–member exchange (LMX) andjob satisfaction: A cross-lagged analysis. Applied Psychology, 60, 522–545. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00446.x

*Waismel-Manor, R., Tziner, A., Berger, E., & Dikstein, E. (2010). Two of akind? Leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Themoderating role of leader–member similarity. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 40, 167–181. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00568.x

*Wang, H., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2008). Leader–member exchange,employee performance, and work outcomes: An empirical study in theChinese context. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 19, 1809–1824. doi:10.1080/09585190802323926


*Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005).Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship betweentransformational leadership and followers’ performance and organiza-tional citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407908

Wasti, S. A., & Can, Ö. (2008). Affective and normative commitment toorganization, supervisor, and coworkers: Do collectivist values matter?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 404–413. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.003

*Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influ-ences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role oftrust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34, 406–422. doi:10.1108/00483480510599752

*Watson, C. (2010). The relationship of subordinate perceptions of leader–member exchange and reciprocity norms on the quality of integrativetrust: A police officer census (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3389194)

*Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, andexchange quality in supervisor–subordinate interactions: A laboratoryexperiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487

*Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader–memberexchange on employee citizenship and impression management behav-ior. Human Relations, 46, 1431–1440. doi:10.1177/001872679304601204

*Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The roleof human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predictingcareer success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 577–595. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5�577::AID-JOB958�3.0.CO;2-0

*Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). Therole of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizationalsupport and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 590–598. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590

*Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organiza-tional support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange per-spective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111. doi:10.2307/257021

*Wech, B. A. (2001). Team–member exchange and trust contexts: Effectson individual level outcome variables beyond the influence of leader–member exchange (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3021460)

*Wheeler, A. R., Harris, K. J., & Harvey, P. (2010). Moderating andmediating the HRM effectiveness–intent to turnover relationship: The

roles of supervisors and job embeddedness. Journal of ManagerialIssues, 22, 182–196.

*White, C. (2007). The leader–member exchange as a function of leaderrapport management behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3270514)

*Whittington, J. L. (1997). An integrative model of transformational lead-ership and follower behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9804688)

*Wilhelm, C. C., Herd, A. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1993). Attributionalconflict between managers and subordinates: An investigation of leader–member exchange effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,531–544. doi:10.1002/job.4030140603

*Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurementand nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employeeattitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 88–101. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.88

Wu, J. B., Hom, P. W., Tetrick, L. E., Shore, L. M., Jia, L., Li, C., & Song,L. J. (2006). The norm of reciprocity: Scale development and validationin the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 2, 377–402. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00047.x

*Wu, Y.-J. (2009). A multidimensional analysis of the relationship betweenleader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior withan alternative measure of leader–member exchange (Doctoral disserta-tion). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMINo. 3359347)

*Yagil, D. (2006). Perceptions of justice within leader–employee dyads. Interna-tional Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9, 291–306.

*Yeh, Y. M. (2005). An investigation of the impact of leader–memberexchange, team–member exchange on staff attitudes and perceptions foraccounting professionals (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Pro-Quest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3185866)

*Yi, X. (2002). Guanxi and leader–member exchange in the Chinesecontext (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses database. (UMI No. 3044268).

*Zalesny, M. D., & Kirsch, M. P. (1989). The effect of similarity onperformance ratings and interrater agreement. Human Relations, 42,81–96. doi:10.1177/001872678904200105

Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 17, 229–239. doi:10.2307/2393957

*Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2010, August). Leader–follower congru-ence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role ofLMX. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Man-agement, Montréal, Canada.


Appendix

Summary of Studies Included in the Current Meta-Analysis and Coding for Moderators

Study N

Moderator coding LMX/correlate

Country HI/VCVari-able r � Var

Anand et al. (2010) 246 India VC LMX .90 1.08Anand et al. (2010) 246 India VC OCB .18 .62 1.00Anderson & Williams (1996) 465 United States HI LMX .90 0.56Anderson & Williams (1996) 465 United States HI OCB .36 .94 0.71Andrews & Kacmar (2001) 418 United States HI LMX .90 0.98Andrews & Kacmar (2001) 418 United States HI DJ .26 .93 1.10Andrews & Kacmar (2001) 418 United States HI PJ .30 .82 0.58Aryee & Chen (2006) 237 China VC LMX .82Aryee & Chen (2006) 237 China VC TP .31 .83Aryee & Chen (2006) 237 China VC JS .50 .89Aryee & Chen (2006) 237 China VC TI �.35 .91Ballinger et al. (2010) 496 United States HI LMX .95 0.79Ballinger et al. (2010) 496 United States HI TI �.43 .89 1.61Barbuto & Wheeler (2006) 388 United States HI LMX .89 0.48Barbuto & Wheeler (2006) 388 United States HI TL .38 .89 0.42Basu (1991) 289 United States HI LMX .89 0.71Basu (1991) 289 United States HI TP .22 .85 0.17Basu (1991) 289 United States HI AC .35 .83 0.49Basu (1991) 289 United States HI TL .70 .93 0.64Basu & Green (1995) 225 United States HI LMX .89 0.71Basu & Green (1995) 225 United States HI OCB .22 .93 0.50Basu & Green (1995) 225 United States HI AC .35 .89 0.49Basu & Green (1995) 225 United States HI TL .70 .93 0.64Bauer et al. (2006) 67 United States HI LMX .90 0.59Bauer et al. (2006) 67 United States HI TP .33 .91 0.55Bauer et al. (2006) 67 United States HI TI �.02 .87 0.76Bauer & Green (1996) 311 United States HI LMX .94 1.51Bauer & Green (1996) 311 United States HI TP .57 .95 1.59Bernerth (2005) 195 United States HI LMX .90 1.19Bernerth (2005) 195 United States HI TP .16 .93 0.79Bernerth (2005) 195 United States HI OCB .14 .92 0.27Bernerth (2005) 195 United States HI JS .43 .88 1.30Bernerth (2005) 195 United States HI AC .46 .89 1.66Bernerth (2005) 195 United States HI TI �.29 .87 2.56Bettencourt (2004), Sample 1 630 United States HI LMX .89 2.02Bettencourt (2004), Sample 1 630 United States HI AC .44 .89 1.32Bettencourt (2004), Sample 1 630 United States HI TL .88 .93 2.25Bettencourt (2004), Sample 2 183 United States HI LMX .89 2.02Bettencourt (2004), Sample 2 183 United States HI OCB .25 .92 0.45Bhal (2006) 306 India VC LMX .91 0.53Bhal (2006) 306 India VC OCB .17 .63 0.25Bhal (2006) 306 India VC DJ .16 .78 0.88

(Appendix continues)


Appendix (continued)

Study N


CountryHI/VC Variable r � Var

Bhal (2006) 306 India VC PJ .41 .78 0.44Bhal (2006) 306 India VC IJ .38 .80 0.34Bhal & Ansari (2007) 295 India VC LMX .90 0.61Bhal & Ansari (2007) 295 India VC DJ .10 .77 0.88Bhal & Ansari (2007) 295 India VC PJ .32 .77 0.42Bhal & Ansari (2007) 295 India VC JS .22 .86 0.76Bhal & Ansari (2007) 295 India VC AC .21 .75 0.30Bhal et al. (2009) 306 India VC LMX .88a 0.61Bhal et al. (2009) 306 India VC OCB .16 .63 0.25G. Blau (1988) 69 United States HI LMX .87 0.64G. Blau (1988) 69 United States HI TP .30 .74 0.69G. Blau (1988) 69 United States HI AC .33 .89 0.45Botero (2005), Sample 1 123 United States HI LMX .95 1.39Botero (2005), Sample 1 123 United States HI OCB .49 .90 1.35Botero (2005), Sample 1 123 United States HI JS .43 .91 1.99Botero (2005), Sample 2 147 Colombia VC LMX .93 1.28Botero (2005), Sample 2 147 Colombia VC OCB .39 .85 1.46Botero (2005), Sample 2 147 Colombia VC JS .31 .80 1.30Boulanger (2008) 168 United States HI LMX .91 2.26Boulanger (2008) 168 United States HI TP .14 .93 0.52Boulanger (2008) 168 United States HI LT .54 .92 0.29Bowman (2010) 128 United States HI LMX .93 0.96Bowman (2010) 128 United States HI TI �.29 .91 2.92Brandes et al. (2004) 129 United States HI LMX .93 1.51Brandes et al. (2004) 129 United States HI TP .38 .93 0.94Brandes et al. (2004) 129 United States HI OCB .39 .93 1.17Brouer (2007) 79 United States HI LMX .79 0.40Brouer (2007) 79 United States HI OCB .37 .82 0.14Brouer (2007) 79 United States HI AC .42 .91 0.45Brouer (2007) 79 United States HI LT .80 .91 0.37Brunetto et al. (2010) 1,064 Australia HI LMX .93 0.64Brunetto et al. (2010) 1,064 Australia HI AC .42 .87 1.00Butler (2010) 397 United States HI LMX .93 1.14Butler (2010) 397 United States HI JS .50 .76 0.64Butler (2010) 397 United States HI AC .49 .93 1.23Butler (2010) 397 United States HI TI �.46 .86 0.96Carter (2010) 49 United States HI LMX .90a 0.83Carter (2010) 49 United States HI OCB .08 .88 0.77Castleberry & Tanner (1989) 45 United States HI LMX .88Castleberry & Tanner (1989) 45 United States HI AC .44 .86a

Chan (2004) 147 United States HI LMX .87 1.00Chan (2004) 147 United States HI AC .50 .68 3.17Chan (2004) 147 United States HI NC .17 .63 3.20Chan (2004) 147 United States HI JS .45 .89 1.25Chang (2005) 428 United States HI LMX .91Chang (2005) 428 United States HI TI �.36 .89 1.42Y. Chen et al. (2009) 209 China VC LMX .95 0.88Y. Chen et al. (2009) 209 China VC AC .51 .89 0.86Y. Chen et al. (2009) 209 China VC TI �.06 .89 1.44Z. Chen et al. (2007) 238 China VC LMX .81 0.24Z. Chen et al. (2007) 238 China VC TP .23 .86 1.04Z. X. Chen et al. (2008) 273 China VC LMX .75 0.52Z. X. Chen et al. (2008) 273 China VC TP .25 .96Z. X. Chen et al. (2008) 273 China VC OCB .21 .88 1.25Z. X. Chen et al. (2008) 273 China VC AC .20 .74 0.94Chi & Lo (2003) 104 Taiwan VC LMX .92 0.86Chi & Lo (2003) 104 Taiwan VC DJ .15 .70 0.56Chi & Lo (2003) 104 Taiwan VC PJ .38 .86 0.29Chuang & Shen (2008) 184 Taiwan VC LMX .84Chuang & Shen (2008) 184 Taiwan VC AC .29 .85




Study N



Chuang & Shen (2008) 184 Taiwan VC TI �.32 .85Clemens et al. (2009) 188 United States HI LMX .95 0.98Clemens et al. (2009) 188 United States HI JS .74 .83 0.23Clemens et al. (2009) 188 United States HI TI �.41 .89 3.69Cogliser et al. (2009) 285 United States HI LMX .92 0.67Cogliser et al. (2009) 285 United States HI TP .35 .94 1.12Cogliser et al. (2009) 285 United States HI JS .60 .91 0.34Cogliser et al. (2009) 285 United States HI AC .37 .90 0.56Collins & George (2010) 1,024 United States HI LMX .89 0.69Collins & George (2010) 1,024 United States HI JS .71 .93 0.42Collins & George (2010) 1,024 United States HI TI �.44 .76 0.83Connell (2005) 131 United States HI LMX .90 0.58Connell (2005) 131 United States HI OCB .27 .88 1.19Connell (2005) 131 United States HI TL .77 .90 0.98DeConinck (2009) 419 United States HI LMX .95 1.27DeConinck (2009) 419 United States HI AC .44 .87 0.28DeConinck (2009) 419 United States HI TI �.34 .30 0.57DeConinck (2011) 365 United States HI LMX .93 0.57DeConinck (2011) 365 United States HI TP .40 .76 0.93DeConinck (2011) 365 United States HI AC .55 .87 0.61DeConinck (2011) 365 United States HI TI �.37 .82 2.56Deluga (1992) 145 United States HI LMX .92 0.58Deluga (1992) 145 United States HI TL .84 .97 0.85Deluga (1998) 123 United States HI LMX .88 1.32Deluga (1998) 123 United States HI TP .25 .94 0.98Deluga (1998) 123 United States HI OCB .28 .93 0.58Deluga & Perry (1994) 152 United States HI LMX .91 0.23Deluga & Perry (1994) 152 United States HI TP .35 .89 0.71DelVecchio (1998) 155 United States HI LMX .85 1.27DelVecchio (1998) 155 United States HI TP .07 .81Dolden (2001) 98 United States HI LMX .94 1.49Dolden (2001) 98 United States HI AC .55 .88 2.13Dolden (2001) 98 United States HI NC .51 .83 1.39Dolden (2001) 98 United States HI CC �.20 .83 1.61Dolden (2001) 98 United States HI JS .66 .93 0.42Dolden (2001) 98 United States HI TI �.48 .94 2.82Duarte et al. (1993) 367 United States HI LMX .82 1.43Duarte et al. (1993) 367 United States HI TP .23 .89a 1.99Duarte et al. (1994) 261 United States HI LMX .82 0.47Duarte et al. (1994) 261 United States HI TP .23 .82 2.53Dunegan (2003) 193 United States HI LMX .92 0.80Dunegan (2003) 193 United States HI JS .46 .79 1.17Dunegan (2003) 193 United States HI AC .53 .86 1.02Dunegan (2003) 193 United States HI TI �.35 .84 3.24Dunegan et al. (1992) 152 United States HI LMX .79 0.54Dunegan et al. (1992) 152 United States HI TP .38 .95 1.01Dunegan et al. (2002) 146 United States HI LMX .79 0.54Dunegan et al. (2002) 146 United States HI TP .36 .95 1.05Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 1 251 United States HI LMX .87 0.96Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 1 251 United States HI TP .23 .92 1.46Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 1 251 United States HI OCB .19 .94 1.66Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 1 251 United States HI AC .33 .87 1.82Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 2 346 Portugal VC LMX .84 0.81Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 2 346 Portugal VC TP .28 .81 0.96Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 2 346 Portugal VC OCB .35 .91 1.04Eisenberger et al. (2010), Sample 2 346 Portugal VC AC .56 .83 1.54Elicker et al. (2006) 188 United States HI LMX .88 0.42




Study N



Elicker et al. (2006) 188 United States HI TP .26 .71 0.08Elicker et al. (2006) 188 United States HI DJ .45 .95 0.83Elicker et al. (2006) 188 United States HI PJ .50 .95 1.74Elicker et al. (2006) 188 United States HI IJ .51 .89 1.06Epitropaki & Martin (1999) 73 England HI LMX .92Epitropaki & Martin (1999) 73 England HI JS .71 .90Epitropaki & Martin (1999) 73 England HI AC .39 .76Epitropaki & Martin (2005) 439 England HI LMX .91 0.77Epitropaki & Martin (2005) 439 England HI JS .60 .75 1.28Epitropaki & Martin (2005) 439 England HI AC .33 .84 1.39Erdogan (2002), Sample 1 261 United States HI LMX .90 1.14Erdogan (2002), Sample 1 261 United States HI DJ .40 .60 1.66Erdogan (2002), Sample 1 261 United States HI PJ .64 .89 1.85Erdogan (2002), Sample 1 261 United States HI IJ .74 .96 1.69Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI LMX .94 1.59Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI TP .40 .92 0.81Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI OCB .45 .91 1.64Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI DJ .57 .96 1.61Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI PJ .53 .92 1.51Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI IJ .80 .84 1.85Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI JS .34 .61 1.44Erdogan (2002), Sample 2 181 United States HI TI �.49 .95 2.50Erdogan & Bauer (2010) 276 Turkey VC LMX .93 1.66Erdogan & Bauer (2010) 276 Turkey VC OCB .28 .88 0.96Erdogan & Bauer (2010) 276 Turkey VC DJ .47 .84 1.96Erdogan & Bauer (2010) 276 Turkey VC PJ .66 .84 1.49Erdogan & Bauer (2010) 276 Turkey VC AC .40 .88 1.35Erdogan & Bauer (2010) 276 Turkey VC JS .37 .81 0.79Erdogan & Enders (2007) 248 United States HI LMX .95 1.59Erdogan & Enders (2007) 248 United States HI TP .14 .92 0.79Erdogan & Enders (2007) 248 United States HI JS .43 .89 2.31Erdogan et al. (2004) 520 Turkey VC LMX .94 1.59Erdogan et al. (2004) 520 Turkey VC JS .29 .83 1.64Erdogan & Liden (2006) 100 Turkey VC LMX .92 1.46Erdogan & Liden (2006) 100 Turkey VC DJ .32 .94 2.04Erdogan & Liden (2006) 100 Turkey VC IJ .76 .90 1.82Erdogan et al. (2006) 263 Turkey VC LMX .94 1.49Erdogan et al. (2006) 263 Turkey VC DJ .45 .87 2.66Erdogan et al. (2006) 263 Turkey VC IJ .77 .95 1.82Erwing & Lee (2009) 183 United States HI LMX .89 0.76Erwing & Lee (2009) 183 United States HI TL .77 .88 0.70Fernandez & Vecchio (1997) 332 United States HI LMX .93 0.74Fernandez & Vecchio (1997) 332 United States HI TP .26 .92 0.69Foosiri (2002) 242 Thailand VC LMX .83 0.61Foosiri (2002) 242 Thailand VC AC .20 .86a 0.23Foosiri (2002) 242 Thailand VC NC .11 .81a 0.40Foosiri (2002) 242 Thailand VC CC �.08 .72a 0.31Francis (2010) 158 United States HI LMX .90a

Francis (2010) 158 United States HI TI �.55 .86a

Gaa (2010) 78 United States HI LMX .85Gaa (2010) 78 United States HI OCB .42 .90Gandolfo (2006) 186 United States HI LMX .92 1.31Gandolfo (2006) 186 United States HI TP .26 .90 0.26Gandolfo (2006) 186 United States HI AC .53 .87 0.66Ghosh (2009) 166 United States HI LMX .92 0.85Ghosh (2009) 166 United States HI OCB .07 .66 0.79Ghosh (2009) 166 United States HI AC .23 .83 0.94Ghosh (2009) 166 United States HI JS .18 .74 0.45Ghosh (2009) 166 United States HI TI �.12 .68 0.71




Study N



Glibkowski (2009) 158 United States HI LMX .86 0.71Glibkowski (2009) 158 United States HI OCB .20 .72 0.35Goertzen (2003) 94 United States HI LMX .94 1.37Goertzen (2003) 94 United States HI LT .15 .76 0.22Golden (2006) 294 United States HI LMX .86 0.58Golden (2006) 294 United States HI JS .36 .88 1.21Gómez & Rosen (2001) 128 United States HI LMX .90 0.61Gómez & Rosen (2001) 128 United States HI LT .47 .93 0.37Graen et al. (1973), Sample 1 202 United States HI LMX .90a

Graen et al. (1973), Sample 1 202 United States HI TP .40 .79Graen et al. (1973), Sample 1 202 United States HI JS .58 .80Graen et al. (1973), Sample 2 340 United States HI LMX .90a

Graen et al. (1973), Sample 2 340 United States HI TP .43 .79Graen et al. (1973), Sample 2 340 United States HI JS .47 .80Green et al. (1996) 208 United States HI LMX .89 0.62Green et al. (1996) 208 United States HI AC .45 .91 0.83Green et al. (1983) 104 United States HI LMX .84Green et al. (1983) 104 United States HI TP �.04 .96Green et al. (1983) 104 United States HI JS .53 .78Green et al. (1983) 104 United States HI AC .43 .86Greenwood (2000) 78 United States HI LMX .93 0.76Greenwood (2000) 78 United States HI TP .16 .89 0.81Greenwood (2000) 78 United States HI OCB .35 .61 1.99Greguras & Ford (2006) 422 United States HI LMX .90 0.36Greguras & Ford (2006) 422 United States HI TP .19 .68 0.58Greguras & Ford (2006) 422 United States HI OCB .22 .94 0.71Greguras & Ford (2006) 422 United States HI AC .53 .83 0.64Grosvenor (2005) 318 Canada HI LMX .91 0.67Grosvenor (2005) 318 Canada HI TL .84 .91 0.56Grosvenor (2005) 318 Canada HI LT .70 .67 0.56Gupta & Krishnan (2004) 102 India VC LMX .78 0.53Gupta & Krishnan (2004) 102 India VC TL .02 .78 0.07Gutknecht (2004), Sample 1 130 Switzerland HI LMX .91Gutknecht (2004), Sample 1 130 Switzerland HI JS .56 .78Gutknecht (2004), Sample 1 130 Switzerland HI TI �.41 .78Gutknecht (2004), Sample 2 483 Switzerland HI LMX .93Gutknecht (2004), Sample 2 483 Switzerland HI JS .42 .76Gutknecht (2004), Sample 2 483 Switzerland HI TI �.34 .79Hansen (2010), Sample 1 201 United States HI LMX .89 1.30Hansen (2010), Sample 1 201 United States HI AC .68 .91 0.74Hansen (2010), Sample 1 201 United States HI LT .69 .81 0.55Hansen (2010), Sample 2 58 United States HI LMX .83 1.10Hansen (2010), Sample 2 58 United States HI TP .24 .85 0.18Hansen (2010), Sample 2 58 United States HI OCB .06 .84 0.27Harris (2004), Sample 1 466 United States HI LMX .93 0.72Harris (2004), Sample 1 466 United States HI JS .39 .71 0.38Harris (2004), Sample 2 418 United States HI LMX .90 0.98Harris (2004), Sample 2 418 United States HI JS .43 .68 0.61Harris et al. (2007) 136 United States HI LMX .89 1.19Harris et al. (2007) 136 United States HI JS .23 .88 1.17Harris & Kacmar (2006), Sample 1 120 United States HI LMX .89 0.67Harris & Kacmar (2006), Sample 1 120 United States HI JS .15 .88 0.83Harris & Kacmar (2006), Sample 2 418 United States HI LMX .90 0.98Harris & Kacmar (2006), Sample 2 418 United States HI JS .42 .68 0.98Harris & Kacmar (2005) 1,255 United States HI LMX .93 0.98Harris & Kacmar (2005) 1,255 United States HI TP .15 .81 0.24Harris et al. (2005), Sample 1 402 United States HI LMX .90 0.96Harris et al. (2005), Sample 1 402 United States HI JS .42 .73 0.61Harris et al. (2005), Sample 1 402 United States HI TI �.39 .85 2.28Harris et al. (2005), Sample 2 183 United States HI LMX .88 1.99




Study N



Harris et al. (2005), Sample 2 183 United States HI JS .55 .73 0.61Harris et al. (2005), Sample 2 183 United States HI TI �.25 .86a 4.20Harris et al. (2009), Sample 1 244 United States HI LMX .94 0.77Harris et al. (2009), Sample 1 244 United States HI JS .40 .89 0.55Harris et al. (2009), Sample 1 244 United States HI TI �.28 .92 1.56Harris et al. (2009), Sample 2 158 United States HI LMX .92 0.38Harris et al. (2009), Sample 2 158 United States HI TP .15 .71 0.37Harris et al. (2009), Sample 2 158 United States HI OCB .12 .81 0.56Heck et al. (2005) 312 United States HI LMX .90 0.60Heck et al. (2005) 312 United States HI DJ .66 .94 0.98Heck et al. (2005) 312 United States HI PJ .81 .88 0.50Heck et al. (2005) 312 United States HI AC .61 .80 0.52Heck et al. (2005) 312 United States HI JS .64 .80 0.50Henderson (2009) 245 United States HI LMX .94 1.25Henderson (2009) 245 United States HI AC .24 .92 1.14Henderson (2009) 245 United States HI JS .30 .81 0.98Henderson et al. (2008) 278 United States HI LMX .89 2.07Henderson et al. (2008) 278 United States HI TP .29 .90 1.72Hepperlen (2002) 196 United States HI LMX .94 1.83Hepperlen (2002) 196 United States HI TP .23 .92 0.81Hepperlen (2002) 196 United States HI OCB .22 .93 1.21Hepperlen (2002) 196 United States HI JS .36 .89 0.37Hepperlen (2002) 196 United States HI TI �.29 .86 3.61Hochwarter (2003) 131 United States HI LMX .90a 0.64Hochwarter (2003) 131 United States HI JS .33 .74 0.71Hochwarter (2003) 131 United States HI AC .53 .74 0.52Hofmann et al. (2003) 127 United States HI LMX .94 0.72Hofmann et al. (2003) 127 United States HI OCB .40 .96 0.72Holcomb (2009) 163 United States HI LMX .90Holcomb (2009) 163 United States HI AC .35 .89Holcomb (2009) 163 United States HI NC .37 .85Holcomb (2009) 163 United States HI CC .06 .77Hoover (2009), Sample 1 230 United States HI LMX .90 0.69Hoover (2009), Sample 1 230 United States HI JS .45 .90 1.06Hoover (2009), Sample 1 230 United States HI AC .39 .86 0.50Hoover (2009), Sample 2 100 United States HI LMX .90 0.69Hoover (2009), Sample 2 100 United States HI TP .06 .91 0.59Hoover (2009), Sample 2 100 United States HI OCB .16 .75 0.59Howell & Hall-Merenda (1999) 317 Canada HI LMX .80 0.45Howell & Hall-Merenda (1999) 317 Canada HI TP .24 .89a 0.18Howell & Hall-Merenda (1999) 317 Canada HI TL .53 .89 0.59Hrivnak (2009) 114 United States HI LMX .88 0.44Hrivnak (2009) 114 United States HI TP .20 .95 0.61Hrivnak (2009) 114 United States HI OCB .19 .92 0.96Hrivnak (2009) 114 United States HI JS .48 .92 1.72Hsiung & Tsai (2009) 184 Taiwan VC LMX .84 0.31Hsiung & Tsai (2009) 184 Taiwan VC TP .29 .96 0.67Hu et al. (2010) 215 India VC LMX .91 1.06Hu et al. (2010) 215 India VC OCB .19 .82 0.88Hui et al. (1999) 386 China VC LMX .73Hui et al. (1999) 386 China VC TP .11 .75Hui et al. (1999) 386 China VC OCB .21 .86a

Hui et al. (2004) 605 China VC LMX .86 1.00Hui et al. (2004) 605 China VC OCB .20 .85 0.28Hui et al. (2004) 605 China VC PJ .50 .92 1.64Hui et al. (2004) 605 China VC AC .53 .92 1.25Hutchison et al. (1998) 91 United States HI LMX .92 0.86Hutchison et al. (1998) 91 United States HI AC .54 .93 0.86Ishak & Alam (2009) 300 Malaysia VC LMX .94 1.30Ishak & Alam (2009) 300 Malaysia VC TP .17 .90 0.71




Study N



Ishak & Alam (2009) 300 Malaysia VC OCB .18 .74 1.03Iyengar (2007) 105 United States HI LMX .83Iyengar (2007) 105 United States HI JS .54 .83Janssen & Van Yperen (2004) 170 Netherlands HI LMX .93 0.79Janssen & Van Yperen (2004) 170 Netherlands HI TP .34 .85 0.77Janssen & Van Yperen (2004) 170 Netherlands HI JS .37 .88 1.23Jenkins (2010) 160 United States HI LMX .94 0.94Jenkins (2010) 160 United States HI OCB .37 .66 0.81Jenkins (2010) 160 United States HI TL .63 .97 1.06Jiao (2007) 170 China VC LMX .91 0.52Jiao (2007) 170 China VC OCB .33 .94 0.22J. O. Johnson (2009), Sample 1 32 United States HI LMX .90a

J. O. Johnson (2009), Sample 1 32 United States HI JS .68 .84a

J. O. Johnson (2009), Sample 2 184 United States HI LMX .94 1.17J. O. Johnson (2009), Sample 2 184 United States HI JS .68 .92 0.61J. Johnson et al. (2009) 245 United States HI LMX .95J. Johnson et al. (2009) 245 United States HI TP .32 .89 0.24J. Johnson et al. (2009) 245 United States HI OCB .36 .56 0.38Jones et al. (1993) 113 United States HI LMX .90 0.64Jones et al. (1993) 113 United States HI JS .47 .67 1.00Jones et al. (1993) 113 United States HI AC .50 .85 0.49Jones et al. (1993) 113 United States HI TI �.21 .86a 1.69Joo (2010) 516 South Korea VC LMX .87 0.37Joo (2010) 516 South Korea VC AC .52 .86 0.53Joo (2010) 516 South Korea VC TI �.32 .87 0.88Judge & Ferris (1993) 81 United States HI LMX .83 0.72Judge & Ferris (1993) 81 United States HI TP .27 .67 0.45Kacmar et al. (1999) 196 United States HI LMX .92 1.04Kacmar et al. (1999) 196 United States HI DJ .45 .94 0.81Kacmar et al. (1999) 196 United States HI JS .36 .87 0.50Kacmar et al. (1999) 196 United States HI AC .41 .87 0.41Kacmar et al. (1999) 196 United States HI TI �.30 .86 0.96Kacmar et al. (2003), Sample 1 188 United States HI LMX .87 2.25Kacmar et al. (2003), Sample 1 188 United States HI TP .22 .91 0.81Kacmar et al. (2003), Sample 2 153 United States HI LMX .83 1.93Kacmar et al. (2003), Sample 2 153 United States HI TP .32 .91 1.00Kamdar & Van Dyne (2007) 230 United States HI LMX .91 1.61Kamdar & Van Dyne (2007) 230 United States HI TP .39 .91 1.96Kamdar & Van Dyne (2007) 230 United States HI OCB .42 .89 1.80Kang (2004) 296 South Korea VC LMX .85 0.29Kang (2004) 296 South Korea VC DJ .46 .84 0.42Kang (2004) 296 South Korea VC PJ .38 .87 0.42Kang (2004) 296 South Korea VC IJ .70 .90 0.62Karriker & Williams (2009) 217 United States HI LMX .90 0.59Karriker & Williams (2009) 217 United States HI OCB .34 .68 0.40Karriker & Williams (2009) 217 United States HI DJ .49 .68 0.97Karriker & Williams (2009) 217 United States HI PJ .58 .68 0.80Karriker & Williams (2009) 217 United States HI IJ .59 .92 0.59Karriker & Williams (2009) 217 United States HI AC .48 .93 0.72Keller & Dansereau (1995) 92 United States HI LMX .69 0.26Keller & Dansereau (1995) 92 United States HI TP .33 .92 0.61Keller & Dansereau (1995) 92 United States HI IJ .65 .93 0.77Keller & Dansereau (2001) 138 United States HI LMX .80Keller & Dansereau (2001) 138 United States HI TP .27 .89Kent & Chelladurai (2001) 75 United States HI LMX .91 0.52Kent & Chelladurai (2001) 75 United States HI AC .29 .80 0.71Kent & Chelladurai (2001) 75 United States HI NC .33 .82 0.96B. Kim et al. (2010), Sample 1 88 South Korea VC LMX .83 0.64B. Kim et al. (2010), Sample 1 88 South Korea VC TI �.25 .87 1.66B. Kim et al. (2010), Sample 2 232 South Korea VC LMX .83 0.71




Study N



B. Kim et al. (2010), Sample 2 232 South Korea VC TI .07 .87 1.61S. K. Kim (2006) 238 United States HI LMX .97 3.86S. K. Kim (2006) 238 United States HI OCB .86 .96 3.31Kinicki & Vecchio (1994) 138 United States HI LMX .89 0.44Kinicki & Vecchio (1994) 138 United States HI AC .31 .91 0.52Klein & Kim (1998) 59 United States HI LMX .91 0.61Klein & Kim (1998) 59 United States HI TP .28 .83Ko (2005) 990 South Korea VC LMX .93 0.29Ko (2005) 990 South Korea VC TL .67 .92 0.13Kraimer et al. (2011) 198 United States HI LMX .94 1.32Kraimer et al. (2011) 198 United States HI TP .38 .82 0.48Kraimer et al. (2011) 198 United States HI AC .29 .86 1.23Kraimer et al. (2011) 198 United States HI JS .46 .84 1.30Kraimer & Wayne (2004) 230 United States HI LMX .93 0.90Kraimer & Wayne (2004) 230 United States HI TP .21 .86 0.61Kraimer & Wayne (2004) 230 United States HI OCB .22 .84 0.74Kraimer & Wayne (2004) 230 United States HI AC .22 .89 0.98Kraus (1999) 134 United States HI LMX .89 0.72Kraus (1999) 134 United States HI JS .46 .88 0.76Kraus (2002) 12 United States HI LMX .90 0.61Kraus (2002) 12 United States HI TP .26 .99 0.96Kraus (2002) 12 United States HI OCB .27 .96 1.30Krishnan (2004) 281 India VC LMX .77 0.35Krishnan (2004) 281 India VC TL .62 .88 0.52Krishnan (2005) 100 United States HI LMX .89 0.49Krishnan (2005) 100 United States HI TI �.50 .85 1.49Krishnan (2005) 100 United States HI TL .08 .98 0.81T. Lam (2003) 417 China VC LMX .88 0.49T. Lam (2003) 417 China VC JS .49 .84a 2.99T. Lam (2003) 417 China VC AC .52 .86 0.59T. Lam (2003) 417 China VC TI �.32 .84 5.11W. Lam et al. (2007) 240 China VC LMX .81 0.24W. Lam et al. (2007) 240 China VC TP .54 .87a

Law & Wong (1999) 224 China VC LMX .86 0.52Law & Wong (1999) 224 China VC JS .37 .88 0.72Law & Wong (1999) 224 China VC TI �.27 .81 1.00Law et al. (2000) 189 China VC LMX .87 1.59Law et al. (2000) 189 China VC TP .37 .91 1.20H. R. Lee (2000) 250 United States HI LMX .93 2.15H. R. Lee (2000) 250 United States HI DJ .86 .96 3.13H. R. Lee (2000) 250 United States HI PJ .90 .98 2.56H. R. Lee (2000) 250 United States HI JS .81 .95 1.90H. R. Lee (2000) 250 United States HI AC .56 .96 2.28H. R. Lee (2000) 250 United States HI TI �.39 .90 3.76H. R. Lee et al. (2010) 250 United States HI LMX .91 2.15H. R. Lee et al. (2010) 250 United States HI DJ .86 .96 3.14H. R. Lee et al. (2010) 250 United States HI PJ .90 .96 2.58H. R. Lee et al. (2010) 250 United States HI TI �.39 .91 3.77J. Lee (2001) 280 United States HI LMX .88 0.62J. Lee (2001) 280 United States HI DJ .29 .80 1.46J. Lee (2001) 280 United States HI PJ .68 .95 1.46J. Lee (2005) 201 Singapore VC LMX .90 2.02J. Lee (2005) 201 Singapore VC AC .61 .89 1.17J. Lee (2005) 201 Singapore VC NC .52 .85 1.42J. Lee (2005) 201 Singapore VC TL .68 .93 0.50M. Lee & Son (1999) 137 South Korea VC LMX .92 1.23M. Lee & Son (1999) 137 South Korea VC TP .24 .93 0.21Li et al. (2010) 200 China VC LMX .85 0.83Li et al. (2010) 200 China VC OCB .26 .90 0.35Li et al. (2010) 200 China VC PJ .35 .76 0.41




Study N



Li et al. (2010) 200 China VC JS .51 .83 1.30H. Liao et al. (2010) 828 China VC LMX .89 1.14H. Liao et al. (2010) 828 China VC TP .25 .87a

S.-H. Liao et al. (2009) 303 Taiwan VC LMX .86 0.30S.-H. Liao et al. (2009) 303 Taiwan VC AC .45 .84 0.41S.-H. Liao et al. (2009) 303 Taiwan VC NC .29 .66 0.48S.-H. Liao et al. (2009) 303 Taiwan VC CC .14 .69 0.56S.-H. Liao et al. (2009) 303 Taiwan VC JS .46 .72 0.54Liden et al. (2006) 834 United States HI LMX .96 1.35Liden et al. (2006) 834 United States HI TP .23 .92Liden et al. (2000) 337 United States HI LMX .96 1.30Liden et al. (2000) 337 United States HI TP .12 .90 1.17Liden et al. (2000) 337 United States HI JS .30 .81 0.36Liden et al. (2000) 337 United States HI AC .36 .90 1.17Liden et al. (1993) 166 United States HI LMX .80 0.93Liden et al. (1993) 166 United States HI TP .24 .93 1.04Lindsay (2008) 418 United States HI LMX .88 0.53Lindsay (2008) 418 United States HI OCB .33 .92 0.67Lindsay (2008) 418 United States HI AC .20 .86 0.66Lindsay (2008) 418 United States HI NC .17 .82 0.59Lindsay (2008) 418 United States HI CC .08 .69 0.56Lindsay (2008) 418 United States HI JS .25 .87 0.38Lindsay (2008) 418 United States HI TI �.18 .71 0.66Lippstreu (2010) 263 United States HI LMX .90 0.50Lippstreu (2010) 263 United States HI TL .71 .94 0.42Lo et al. (2010) 156 Malaysia VC LMX .88 1.10Lo et al. (2010) 156 Malaysia VC AC .63 .93 1.51Lo et al. (2010) 156 Malaysia VC NC .79 .90 1.00Lo et al. (2010) 156 Malaysia VC CC .36 .67 1.02Lo et al. (2010) 156 Malaysia VC TL .80 .84 1.14Loi & Ngo (2009) 239 China VC LMX .87 0.96Loi & Ngo (2009) 239 China VC TP .01 .78 0.46Loi & Ngo (2009) 239 China VC OCB �.06 .82 0.62Loi et al. (2009) 239 China VC LMX .87 0.96Loi et al. (2009) 239 China VC AC .57 .84 0.98Loi et al. (2009) 239 China VC TI �.31 .90 1.90Major et al. (1995) 248 United States HI LMX .83 0.28Major et al. (1995) 248 United States HI JS .48 .90 0.29Major et al. (1995) 248 United States HI AC .48 .87 0.56Major et al. (1995) 248 United States HI TI �.25 .90 1.72Manogran et al. (1994) 282 United States HI LMX .91 0.50Manogran et al. (1994) 282 United States HI OCB .17 .93 1.12Manogran et al. (1994) 282 United States HI DJ .48 .89 1.02Manogran et al. (1994) 282 United States HI PJ .28 .81 0.79Manogran et al. (1994) 282 United States HI IJ .76 .91 1.06Manogran et al. (1994) 282 United States HI JS .61 .91 0.45Manogran et al. (1994) 282 United States HI AC .33 .91 1.66Markham et al. (2010) 82 United States HI LMX .91 1.30Markham et al. (2010) 82 United States HI TP .11 .92 0.74Martin (1999) 522 United States HI LMX .95 1.93Martin (1999) 522 United States HI LT .26 .72 0.67Maslyn & Fedor (1998) 513 United States HI LMX .92 0.59Maslyn & Fedor (1998) 513 United States HI OCB .24 .73 0.46Maslyn & Fedor (1998) 513 United States HI AC .42 .89 2.46Maslyn & Fedor (1998) 513 United States HI TI �.52 .87 4.49Masterson et al. (2000) 651 United States HI LMX .89 0.74Masterson et al. (2000) 651 United States HI TP .16 .89a 0.61Masterson et al. (2000) 651 United States HI OCB .27 .78 0.24Masterson et al. (2000) 651 United States HI IJ .67 .94




Study N



Masterson et al. (2000) 651 United States HI JS .48 .84a 0.72Masterson et al. (2000) 651 United States HI AC .37 .74 0.64Masterson et al. (2000) 651 United States HI TI �.24 .77 0.98Mehta (2009) 330 India VC LMX .89 0.18Mehta (2009) 330 India VC AC .24 .87 0.81Mehta (2009) 330 India VC TI �.02 .89 1.04Mendez (1999) 200 United States HI LMX .93 0.74Mendez (1999) 200 United States HI TI �.09 .74 3.96Morrow et al. (2005) 207 United States HI LMX .94 0.76Morrow et al. (2005) 207 United States HI AC .46 .74 0.96S. E. Murphy & Ensher (1999) 54 United States HI LMX .91 0.60S. E. Murphy & Ensher (1999) 54 United States HI TP .37 .93 0.54S. E. Murphy & Ensher (1999) 54 United States HI JS .37 .80 0.41S. M. Murphy (1997) 156 United States HI LMX .88 0.74S. M. Murphy (1997) 156 United States HI TP .16 .88 0.88S. M. Murphy (1997) 156 United States HI OCB .47 .89 0.86S. M. Murphy (1997) 156 United States HI DJ .31 .94 2.04S. M. Murphy (1997) 156 United States HI PJ .51 .86 1.64S. M. Murphy (1997) 156 United States HI IJ .57 .96 1.80S. M. Murphy et al. (2003) 124 United States HI LMX .86 0.81S. M. Murphy et al. (2003) 124 United States HI DJ .37 .93 0.81S. M. Murphy et al. (2003) 124 United States HI IJ .64 .96 1.66Nahrgang et al. (2009) 330 United States HI LMX .92 0.30Nahrgang et al. (2009) 330 United States HI TP .29 .93Nathan et al. (1991) 292 United States HI LMX .92 1.69Nathan et al. (1991) 292 United States HI TP .18 .89a 1.54Nathan et al. (1991) 292 United States HI JS .21 .84a 1.66Novak (1984) 296 United States HI LMX .86 0.73Novak (1984) 296 United States HI LT .78 .96 0.77Nystrom (1990) 171 United States HI LMX .79 0.36Nystrom (1990) 171 United States HI AC .49 .90 1.21O’Donnell (2009), Sample 1 248 United States HI LMX .87 0.56O’Donnell (2009), Sample 1 248 United States HI TL .62 .89 1.33O’Donnell (2009), Sample 2 271 United States HI LMX .95 1.74O’Donnell (2009), Sample 2 271 United States HI TL .67 .94 1.38O’Driscoll & Beehr (1994) 136 New Zealand HI LMX .94 0.67O’Driscoll & Beehr (1994) 136 New Zealand HI JS .43 .86 0.61O’Driscoll & Beehr (1994) 136 New Zealand HI TI �.34 .93 2.28Paglis & Green (2002) 127 United States HI LMX .92 0.90Paglis & Green (2002) 127 United States HI TP .08 .92 0.59Paglis & Green (2002) 127 United States HI OCB .21 .87 0.62Palacios (2010) 99 United States HI LMX .93 1.34Palacios (2010) 99 United States HI JS .25 .88 0.59Pelled & Xin (2000), Sample 1 90 United States HI LMX .89 0.56Pelled & Xin (2000), Sample 1 90 United States HI TP .13 .88 0.41Pelled & Xin (2000), Sample 1 90 United States HI LT .49 .78 2.37Pelled & Xin (2000), Sample 2 195 Mexico VC LMX .78 0.56Pelled & Xin (2000), Sample 2 195 Mexico VC TP .22 .74 0.49Pelled & Xin (2000), Sample 2 195 Mexico VC LT .42 .61 1.88Pellegrini & Scandura (2006) 172 Turkey VC LMX .90 1.05Pellegrini & Scandura (2006) 172 Turkey VC JS .39 .86 0.86Pellegrini et al. (2010) 215 United States HI LMX .93 1.59Pellegrini et al. (2010) 207 India VC LMX .94 1.69Pellegrini et al. (2010) 207 India VC AC .44 .70 0.23Pellegrini et al. (2010) 215 United States HI AC .48 .83 0.67Pellegrini et al. (2010) 207 India VC JS .53 .92 0.28Pellegrini et al. (2010) 215 United States HI JS .59 .87 0.40Perizade & Sulaiman (2005) 613 Indonesia VC LMX .87 0.89Perizade & Sulaiman (2005) 613 Indonesia VC AC .43 .89 1.10




Study N



Phillips & Bedeian (1994) 84 United States HI LMX .87 0.40Phillips & Bedeian (1994) 84 United States HI TP .26 .91 1.46Piccolo & Colquitt (2006) 283 United States HI LMX .93 0.88Piccolo & Colquitt (2006) 283 United States HI TP .31 .93 0.32Piccolo & Colquitt (2006) 283 United States HI OCB .38 .94 0.41Piccolo & Colquitt (2006) 283 United States HI TL .70 .96 0.76Pierce (2001), Sample 1 177 United States HI LMX .95Pierce (2001), Sample 1 177 United States HI OCB .36 .80Pierce (2001), Sample 2 298 United States HI LMX .98Pierce (2001), Sample 2 298 United States HI OCB .31 .91Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 1 80 India VC LMX .81 0.32Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 1 80 India VC DJ .26 .81 0.55Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 1 80 India VC PJ .40 .76 0.46Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 1 80 India VC JS .58 .85 0.27Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 1 80 India VC TL .59 .92 0.55Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 2 190 Saudi Arabia/Jordan VC LMX .84 0.45Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 2 190 Saudi Arabia/Jordan VC DJ .32 .72 0.59Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 2 190 Saudi Arabia/Jordan VC PJ .41 .76 0.50Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 2 190 Saudi Arabia/Jordan VC JS .43 .79 0.21Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 2 190 Saudi Arabia/Jordan VC TL .24 .87 0.69Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 3 85 Colombia VC LMX .86 0.44Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 3 85 Colombia VC DJ .40 .78 0.58Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 3 85 Colombia VC PJ .57 .89 0.74Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 3 85 Colombia VC JS .51 .80 0.26Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 3 85 Colombia VC TL .59 .78 0.66Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 4 240 United States HI LMX .89 0.50Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 4 240 United States HI DJ .29 .83 0.62Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 4 240 United States HI PJ .64 .88 0.76Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 4 240 United States HI JS .69 .87 0.48Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 4 240 United States HI TL .75 .94 0.88Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 5 160 Australia HI LMX .90 0.50Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 5 160 Australia HI DJ .38 .85 0.59Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 5 160 Australia HI PJ .64 .88 0.69Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 5 160 Australia HI JS .50 .77 0.45Pillai et al. (1999), Sample 5 160 Australia HI TL .69 .89 0.94Polly (2002) 348 United States HI LMX .92 0.49Polly (2002) 348 United States HI AC .35 .82 0.52Rahn (2010) 210 United States HI LMX .91 0.32Rahn (2010) 210 United States HI AC .49 .64 0.53Rahn (2010) 210 United States HI TI �.45 .92 1.44Rahn (2010) 210 United States HI TL .35 .95 0.61Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC LMX .82 1.14Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC DJ .29 .95 2.16Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC PJ .43 .88 1.49Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC IJ .49 .82 1.10Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC AC .48 .72 0.94Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC NC .49 .78 1.08Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC CC .05 .79 0.86Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC JS .47 .73 1.00Ren (2007), Sample 1 173 China VC LT .53 .63 0.45Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI LMX .89 0.52Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI DJ .24 .95 0.76Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI PJ .42 .85 0.35Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI IJ .62 .90 0.64Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI AC .47 .83 1.28Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI NC .33 .85 1.32Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI CC .04 .88 1.14Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI JS .42 .89 1.25




Study N



Ren (2007), Sample 2 263 United States HI LT .63 .79 0.28Richins (2003) 330 United States HI LMX .86 1.46Richins (2003) 330 United States HI TP .42 .89 0.81Richins (2003) 330 United States HI OCB .43 .93 1.12Richins (2003) 330 United States HI AC .46 .76 1.59Richins (2003) 330 United States HI JS .39 .83 1.96Richins (2003) 330 United States HI TI �.36 .81 2.31Roch & Shanock (2006) 272 United States HI LMX .88 0.58Roch & Shanock (2006) 272 United States HI DJ .42 .97 1.04Roch & Shanock (2006) 272 United States HI PJ .50 .89 0.61Roch & Shanock (2006) 272 United States HI IJ .78 .83 0.67Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI LMX .88 0.44Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI TP .43 .94 0.56Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI OCB .34 .88 0.53Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI DJ .36 .93 0.64Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI PJ .30 .89 0.50Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI JS .62 .80 0.66Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI AC .41 .85 0.56Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI TI �.36 .81 1.12Sanchez (2002) 106 United States HI LT .41 .91 0.58Scandura et al. (1986) 58 United States HI LMX .86 0.53Scandura et al. (1986) 58 United States HI TP .36 .88 0.41Scandura & Pellegrini (2008) 228 United States HI LMX .89 0.50Scandura & Pellegrini (2008) 228 United States HI LT .29 .91 0.90Scandura & Schriesheim (1994) 183 United States HI LMX .86 0.44Scandura & Schriesheim (1994) 183 United States HI TP .27 .93 0.88Schaninger (2002) 210 United States HI LMX .93 1.06Schaninger (2002) 210 United States HI TP .10 .90 0.56Schaninger (2002) 210 United States HI OCB .18 .89 0.74Schaninger (2002) 210 United States HI JS .44 .79 1.77Schaninger (2002) 210 United States HI TI �.37 .85 2.46Schriesheim et al. (2000) 150 United States HI LMX .86 0.64Schriesheim et al. (2000) 150 United States HI TP .23 .77 0.66Schriesheim et al. (2000) 150 United States HI AC .75 .85 0.37Schriesheim et al. (1998) 106 United States HI LMX .82 0.33Schriesheim et al. (1998) 106 United States HI TP .39 .84 0.27Schriesheim et al. (1992), Sample 1 281 United States HI LMX .81 0.35Schriesheim et al. (1992), Sample 1 281 United States HI AC .43 .91Schriesheim et al. (1992), Sample 1 281 United States HI JS .63 .86Schriesheim et al. (1992), Sample 2 115 United States HI LMX .80 0.43Schriesheim et al. (1992), Sample 2 115 United States HI TP .40 .80Schriesheim et al. (1992), Sample 2 115 United States HI JS .43 .91Schyns et al. (2005), Sample 2 252 Germany HI LMX .84Schyns et al. (2005), Sample 2 252 Germany HI AC .63 .92Schyns et al. (2005), Sample 4 141 Germany HI LMX .89Schyns et al. (2005), Sample 4 141 Germany HI AC .44 .77Scott & Bruce (1994) 172 United States HI LMX .90 0.44Scott & Bruce (1994) 172 United States HI OCB .17 .89 0.71Seers (1989) 154 United States HI LMX .92 0.86Seers (1989) 154 United States HI TP .48 .89a

Seers (1989) 154 United States HI JS .37 .84a

Seers & Graen (1984) 101 United States HI LMX .89 0.40Seers & Graen (1984) 101 United States HI JS .56 .85Sekiguchi et al. (2008) 125 United States HI LMX .95 2.25Sekiguchi et al. (2008) 125 United States HI TP .44 .90 1.19Sekiguchi et al. (2008) 125 United States HI OCB .42 .83 1.17Settoon et al. (1996) 102 United States HI LMX .96 1.14Settoon et al. (1996) 102 United States HI TP .34 .89 0.31




Study N



Settoon et al. (1996) 102 United States HI OCB .42 .81 0.36Settoon et al. (1996) 102 United States HI AC .36 .84 0.30Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI LMX .92 1.72Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI OCB .28 .91 1.42Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI DJ .32 .91 1.30Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI PJ .40 .82 0.71Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI IJ .56 .92 1.10Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI AC .39 .84 1.42Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI JS .42 .84 1.77Shalhoop (2004) 141 United States HI TI �.30 .95 1.77Shapiro et al. (2011) 162 United States HI LMX .88 1.69Shapiro et al. (2011) 162 United States HI TI �.04 .89 3.13Sherony (2002) 98 United States HI LMX .96 1.70Sherony (2002) 98 United States HI TP .03 .89a

Shull (1994) 236 United States HI LMX .80 0.52Shull (1994) 236 United States HI TP .23 .85 0.76Shull (1994) 236 United States HI OCB .21 .81 0.92Shull (1994) 236 United States HI DJ .34 .78 0.86Shull (1994) 236 United States HI PJ .47 .85 0.85Shull (1994) 236 United States HI IJ .49 .94 0.88Sias (2005) 400 United States HI LMX .93 0.63Sias (2005) 400 United States HI JS .49 .73 0.58Sias (2005) 400 United States HI AC .35 .91 0.46Smith (2002) 150 United States HI LMX .96 2.16Smith (2002) 150 United States HI TP .24 .80 0.94Smith (2002) 150 United States HI AC .40 .86 1.77Smith (2002) 150 United States HI JS .25 .90 1.32Soldner & Crimando (2010) 41 United States HI LMX .95Soldner & Crimando (2010) 41 United States HI OCB .15 .72Soldner & Crimando (2010) 41 United States HI AC .38 .86a

Sparrowe (1994) 182 United States HI LMX .75 1.10Sparrowe (1994) 182 United States HI TI �.19 .85 2.82Sparrowe et al. (2006) 177 United States HI LMX .92 0.96Sparrowe et al. (2006) 177 United States HI OCB .16 .87 0.85Stepina et al. (1991) 81 United States HI LMX .73 0.37Stepina et al. (1991) 81 United States HI TP .28 .73 0.62Stepina et al. (1991) 81 United States HI JS .39 .71 1.88Story (2010) 223 China VC LMX .91 0.83Story (2010) 223 China VC AC .41 .81 0.55Stringer (2006) 57 United States HI LMX .90 0.52Stringer (2006) 57 United States HI JS .62 .93 0.86Suazo (2002) 128 United States HI LMX .90 0.69Suazo (2002) 128 United States HI TP .10 .85 0.58Suazo (2002) 128 United States HI OCB .22 .88 0.86Tansky (1993) 75 United States HI LMX .85 0.32Tansky (1993) 75 United States HI OCB .42 .86 0.41Tansky (1993) 75 United States HI PJ .52 .88Tansky (1993) 75 United States HI JS .45 .88 0.27Tansky (1993) 75 United States HI AC .30 .85 0.23Tekleab & Taylor (2003) 130 United States HI LMX .89 0.72Tekleab & Taylor (2003) 130 United States HI TP .34 .70 0.66Tekleab & Taylor (2003) 130 United States HI OCB .52 .85 0.62Tekleab & Taylor (2003) 130 United States HI JS .45 .75 0.64Tekleab & Taylor (2003) 130 United States HI TI �.31 .85 1.12Tepper et al. (2006), Sample 1 347 United States HI LMX .74Tepper et al. (2006), Sample 1 347 United States HI TP .30 .87 1.60Tepper et al. (2006), Sample 2 207 United States HI LMX .90a

Tepper et al. (2006), Sample 2 207 United States HI TP .46 .88 0.46




Study N



Tierney et al. (2002) 100 Mexico VC LMX .89 1.06Tierney et al. (2002) 100 Mexico VC OCB .62 .91 0.81Tierney et al. (2002) 100 Mexico VC JS .52 .90 0.61Tierney et al. (2002) 100 Mexico VC AC .58 .89 0.72Tierney et al. (1999) 159 United States HI LMX .91 0.35Tierney et al. (1999) 159 United States HI TP .30 .95 1.21Townsend et al. (2002) 420 United States HI LMX .87 0.42Townsend et al. (2002) 420 United States HI TP .28 .89a 0.64Townsend et al. (2000) 150 United States HI LMX .90 0.76Townsend et al. (2000) 150 United States HI TP .45 .75 0.76Townsend et al. (2000) 150 United States HI OCB .43 .88 0.69Trepanier (2011) 324 Canada HI LMX .94 0.61Trepanier (2011) 324 Canada HI TP .42 .83 0.28Truckenbrodt (2000) 63 United States HI LMX .87 0.36Truckenbrodt (2000) 63 United States HI OCB .28 .72 0.19Truckenbrodt (2000) 63 United States HI AC .35 .88 1.08Uhl-Bien & Maslyn (2003) 232 United States HI LMX .90 0.59Uhl-Bien & Maslyn (2003) 232 United States HI TP .36 .94 0.52Uhl-Bien & Maslyn (2003) 232 United States HI OCB .32 .91 0.62Uhl-Bien & Maslyn (2003) 232 United States HI AC .33 .87 0.66van Breukelen et al. (2002) 152 Netherlands HI LMX .90 0.46van Breukelen et al. (2002) 152 Netherlands HI AC .40 .74 0.64Van Dyne et al. (2002) 195 United States HI LMX .90 0.94Van Dyne et al. (2002) 195 United States HI TP .03 .89a

Van Dyne et al. (2002) 195 United States HI OCB .37 .88 1.02Van Dyne et al. (2008), Sample 1 218 India VC LMX .91 1.25Van Dyne et al. (2008), Sample 1 218 India VC OCB .52 .91 1.38Van Dyne et al. (2008), Sample 2 234 Singapore VC LMX .93 1.06Van Dyne et al. (2008), Sample 2 234 Singapore VC OCB .34 .95 2.04Vecchio (1985) 45 United States HI LMX .64 0.20Vecchio (1985) 45 United States HI JS .32 .82 2.86Vecchio (1987) 303 United States HI LMX .91 0.43Vecchio (1987) 303 United States HI TP .35 .94Vecchio & Brazil (2007) 1,974 United States HI LMX .90 0.53Vecchio & Brazil (2007) 1,974 United States HI TP .17 .94 1.56Vecchio & Brazil (2007) 1,974 United States HI TI �.34 .90 0.50Vecchio et al. (2006) 860 United States HI LMX .90 0.58Vecchio et al. (2006) 860 United States HI TP .29 .89 0.83Vecchio & Gobdel (1984) 45 United States HI LMX .64 0.20Vecchio & Gobdel (1984) 45 United States HI TP .27 .86 0.53Vecchio & Gobdel (1984) 45 United States HI JS .25 .82Vecchio & Gobdel (1984) 45 United States HI TI �.20 .86a

Vecchio et al. (1986) 173 United States HI LMX .82 0.29Vecchio et al. (1986) 173 United States HI JS .41 .68Vecchio & Norris (1996) 105 United States HI LMX .80 0.69Vecchio & Norris (1996) 105 United States HI TP .37 .93 0.96Venkataramani et al. (2010) 184 India VC LMX .90 0.45Venkataramani et al. (2010) 184 India VC JS .36 .85 0.69Venkataramani et al. (2010) 184 India VC TI �.25 .78 0.71Vidyarthi et al. (2010) 254 India VC LMX .84 0.46Vidyarthi et al. (2010) 254 India VC TP .15 .80 0.48Vidyarthi et al. (2010) 254 India VC OCB .15 .86 0.34Volmer et al. (2011) 279 Germany HI LMX .86 0.52Volmer et al. (2011) 279 Germany HI JS .51 .84a 0.96Waismel-Manor et al. (2010) 163 Israel HI LMX .89 0.41Waismel-Manor et al. (2010) 163 Israel HI OCB .39 .75 0.28




Study N



Wang et al. (2008) 168 China VC LMX .86 0.57Wang et al. (2008) 168 China VC TP .27 .87 0.55Wang et al. (2008) 168 China VC OCB .29 .91 0.67Wang et al. (2008) 168 China VC TI �.05 .70 0.46Wang et al. (2005) 162 China VC LMX .81 0.34Wang et al. (2005) 162 China VC TP .38 .89 0.62Wang et al. (2005) 162 China VC OCB .29 .81 0.27Wang et al. (2005) 162 China VC TL .71 .93 0.20Wat & Shaffer (2005) 183 China VC LMX .88 0.90Wat & Shaffer (2005) 183 China VC OCB .12 .95 2.04Wat & Shaffer (2005) 183 China VC DJ .25 .95 1.77Wat & Shaffer (2005) 183 China VC PJ .25 .93 0.98Wat & Shaffer (2005) 183 China VC IJ .16 .90 1.14Wat & Shaffer (2005) 183 China VC LT .32 .95 2.72Watson (2010) 182 United States HI LMX .89 0.38Watson (2010) 182 United States HI LT .40 .88 0.44Wayne & Ferris (1990), Sample 1 96 United States HI LMX .77Wayne & Ferris (1990), Sample 1 96 United States HI TP .65 .87 0.50Wayne & Ferris (1990), Sample 2 84 United States HI LMX .81Wayne & Ferris (1990), Sample 2 84 United States HI TP .54 .91 0.37Wayne & Green (1993) 73 United States HI LMX .91 0.67Wayne & Green (1993) 73 United States HI OCB .25 .76 0.59Wayne et al. (1999) 245 United States HI LMX .91 1.39Wayne et al. (1999) 245 United States HI TP .34 .87 2.69Wayne et al. (2002) 211 United States HI LMX .89 2.02Wayne et al. (2002) 211 United States HI TP .31 .85 1.04Wayne et al. (2002) 211 United States HI OCB .20 .83 1.02Wayne et al. (2002) 211 United States HI DJ .48 .92 2.31Wayne et al. (2002) 211 United States HI PJ .51 .88 1.96Wayne et al. (2002) 211 United States HI AC .41 .82 1.93Wayne et al. (1997) 252 United States HI LMX .90 1.17Wayne et al. (1997) 252 United States HI TP .45 .92 0.45Wayne et al. (1997) 252 United States HI OCB .26 .86 0.94Wayne et al. (1997) 252 United States HI AC .36 .87 0.94Wayne et al. (1997) 252 United States HI TI �.40 .89 2.16Wech (2001) 403 Canada HI LMX .90a 0.20Wech (2001) 403 Canada HI TP .52 .95 0.42Wech (2001) 403 Canada HI OCB .32 .93 0.23Wech (2001) 403 Canada HI JS .15 .77 0.49Wheeler et al. (2010) 282 United States HI LMX .94 0.74Wheeler et al. (2010) 282 United States HI TI �.28 .86a 1.54White (2007) 1,200 United States HI LMX .75 0.42White (2007) 1,200 United States HI IJ .77 .79 0.56White (2007) 1,200 United States HI LT .80 .81 1.88Whittington (1997) 209 United States HI LMX .91 1.64Whittington (1997) 209 United States HI TP .34 .81 0.25Whittington (1997) 209 United States HI OCB .38 .95 1.17Whittington (1997) 209 United States HI AC .43 .80 0.69Whittington (1997) 209 United States HI NC .10 .75 1.04Whittington (1997) 209 United States HI CC �.14 .76 1.35Whittington (1997) 209 United States HI LT .85 .96 2.86Wilhelm et al. (1993) 141 United States HI LMX .92 0.62Wilhelm et al. (1993) 141 United States HI TP .34 .87 0.75Wilhelm et al. (1993) 141 United States HI DJ .76 .95 1.77Wilhelm et al. (1993) 141 United States HI JS .72 .89 0.08Wilhelm et al. (1993) 141 United States HI TI �.38 .88 3.24Williams et al. (1996) 183 United States HI LMX .95Williams et al. (1996) 183 United States HI AC .39 .81Y.-J. Wu (2009) 231 Taiwan VC LMX .93 1.12Y.-J. Wu (2009) 231 Taiwan VC OCB .19 .92 0.25




Study N



Yagil (2006) 152 Israel HI LMX .78 1.37Yagil (2006) 152 Israel HI PJ .45 .84 1.42Yagil (2006) 152 Israel HI JS .67 .84a 1.46Yeh (2005) 202 United States HI LMX .88 0.80Yeh (2005) 202 United States HI AC .55 .89 0.86Yeh (2005) 202 United States HI NC .22 .81 0.64Yeh (2005) 202 United States HI CC �.10 .82 0.79Yeh (2005) 202 United States HI JS .49 .89 0.96Yeh (2005) 202 United States HI TI �.31 .85 1.37Yi (2002) 633 China VC LMX .72 0.32Yi (2002) 633 China VC JS .21 .81 0.31Yi (2002) 633 China VC AC .49 .88 0.53Zalesny & Kirsch (1989) 76 United States HI LMX .90a

Zalesny & Kirsch (1989) 76 United States HI TP .46 .84 1.00Zhang et al. (2010) 165 China VC LMX .92 1.44Zhang et al. (2010) 165 China VC TP .34 .88 0.36Zhang et al. (2010) 165 China VC AC .28 .85 1.17Zhang et al. (2010) 165 China VC JS .39 .88 0.61

Note. LMX � leader–member exchange; HI � horizontal individualism; VC � vertical collectivism; � � internal consistency (Cronbach’s �); Var �study variance; OCB � organizational citizenship behavior; TP � task performance; DJ � distributive justice; PJ � procedural justice; JS � jobsatisfaction; TI � turnover intentions; TL � transformational leadership; AC � affective organizational commitment; IJ � interactional justice; LT �leader trust; NC � normative organizational commitment; CC � continuance organizational commitment.a Imputed Cronbach’s � based on reliability generalization.

Received November 14, 2010Revision received June 20, 2012

Accepted July 23, 2012 �


leader member exchange (lmx) and culture: a meta-analysis...

Documents